Stansby v QPS - [2018] QMC 24

CITATION:

Stansby v QPS [2018] QMC 24

PARTIES:

Zachary Michael Stansby

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1814/17

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 79K Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Noosa

DELIVERED ON:

20 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

6 and 20 March 2018

MAGISTRATE:

Madsen R

ORDER:

1. Appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Forfeiture of Vehicle – Appeal against administrative decision heard afresh – whether the appellant would suffer severe financial hardship – whether the Appellant has a right to Appeal Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 79A, s 79B, s 79C, s 79D, s 79F, s 79G, s 79H, s 79K, s 79N, s 79O

R v Lake (1989) 44 A Crim R 63

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Cooroy Community Legal Service

Queensland Police Prosecution Corps for the first and second respondents

The appellant owns a Blue Holden Commodore Utility registration number 598-RBA (“the vehicle”).

It is alleged that the appellant committed the following offences;

1. Wilfully making unnecessary noise or smoke on 3 May 2016
2. Wilfully making unnecessary noise or smoke on 15 September 2017

Both 1 and 2 are type 1 offences[1]. The vehicle was impounded[2] by police on 13^th October 2017.
[1] Section 69A (1) (a) (IV) PPRA.
[2] Section 74A (1) (a) PPRA.

The Appellant Pleaded Guilty to the September 2017 Offence on 31 October 2017 and was convicted and was fined $500[3]. This resulted in automatic forfeiture of the vehicle to the State[4].
[3] There was no Appeal lodged.
[4] Section 74B PPRA.

On 28 November 2017 the appellant filed, with the Commissioner for Police, an Application for Early Release[5] of the vehicle. Section 79A (1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act provides;

An eligible person may apply to the commission for the release of a motor vehicle impounded under division 1 or 1A, or immobilised under division 1B, on the basis that the person would suffer severe hardship if the motor vehicle was not released.

[5] Section 79A PPRA.

On 8 December 20147 Inspector Lewis sent to the appellant an Information Notice [6] refusing the early release of the vehicle[7]. The Acting Inspector decided the appellant had refused the application due to the conviction for the September offence.
[6] Attachment 3 to Application for directions Hearing..
[7] Section 79H PPRA.

The appellant appeals[8] against the decision of the Commissioner to the Magistrates Court. He says that the inspector in effect hasn’t properly considered his financial hardship.
[8] Sections 79J to 79O

The matters to be considered, for the purposes of this appeal, will be identical to that of the original decision maker.

Relevantly, the matter to be considered is – whether a refusal of the application would;

“.. Cause severe financial hardship to the applicant or the applicant’s family by depriving the applicant of the applicant’s means of earning a living.”[9]

[9] Section 79B (3) (a).

Arguably, more relevantly is the question of whether Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stansby v QPS

Details

AGLC: Stansby v QPS [2018] QMC 24
Case: [2018] QMC 24
Decision Date: 20 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stansby v QPS, the appellant appealed against the decision of the Magistrates' Court of Queensland to forfeit his vehicle. The matter was heard afresh by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the Magistrates' Court erred by not considering his financial circumstances when deciding to forfeit his vehicle. The appellant contended that he would suffer severe financial hardship if his vehicle was forfeited, and thus, the Magistrates' Court should have granted him a stay of forfeiture. The Queensland Police Service (QPS) submitted that the Magistrates' Court had correctly applied the law and the appellant had not demonstrated that he would suffer severe financial hardship.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Magistrates' Court had correctly exercised its discretion under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to refuse a stay of forfeiture. The Court of Appeal considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law on the exercise of discretion in such circumstances. The Court noted that the Magistrates' Court had considered the appellant's financial circumstances and had decided that a stay of forfeiture was not warranted. The Court held that the Magistrates' Court had correctly exercised its discretion, and the appellant had not demonstrated that the Magistrates' Court had made an error of law or fact.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrates' Court had considered the appellant's financial circumstances and had decided that a stay of forfeiture was not warranted. The Court held that the Magistrates' Court had correctly exercised its discretion, and the appellant had not demonstrated that the Magistrates' Court had made an error of law or fact. The Court found that the Magistrates' Court had considered all relevant factors and had not overlooked any material consideration. The Court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Magistrates' Court had made an error of law or fact, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal refused the appellant's appeal against the Magistrates' Court's decision to forfeit his vehicle. The Court found that the Magistrates' Court had correctly exercised its discretion and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Magistrates' Court had made an error of law or fact.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Stansby v QPS [2018] QMC 24
PARTIES:	Zachary Michael Stansby (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1814/17
DIVISION:	Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 79K Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Noosa
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	6 and 20 March 2018
MAGISTRATE:	Madsen R
ORDER:	1. Appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	Traffic Law – Forfeiture of Vehicle – Appeal against administrative decision heard afresh – whether the appellant would suffer severe financial hardship – whether the Appellant has a right to Appeal Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 79A, s 79B, s 79C, s 79D, s 79F, s 79G, s 79H, s 79K, s 79N, s 79O R v Lake (1989) 44 A Crim R 63
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Cooroy Community Legal Service Queensland Police Prosecution Corps for the first and second respondents