Stapleton v Queensland Police Service - [2019] QDC 190

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Stapleton v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 190

PARTIES:

ELIZABETH STAPLETON
(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

APPEAL NO: 41/19

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2019

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   The conviction and orders of the Magistrates Court made on 13 February 2019 are set aside.

3.   The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined by a different Magistrate according to law.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – practice and procedure - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - conviction – [offence] – mode of hearing – failure to call on defendant for plea before commencing hearing – whether defendant capable of plea before determination of unsoundness of mind - whether separate hearing required for determination of unsoundness of mind under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) – whether appropriate to amalgamate of unsoundness of mind issue into the trial of substantive charge error of law – whether issue of unsoundness of mind mischaracterised as defence pursuant to practice direction – whether defendant has onus of proof on balance of probabilities to prove unsoundness of mind – need for adjournment to facilitate of defendant’s psychiatric expert witness - refusal of further adjournment to facilitate attendance of legal representative’s during that evidence – whether denial of natural justice and opportunity to present evidence – whether errors of law vitiate conviction.

Legislation
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 145, 171, 222, 223 & 227.
Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld), ss 22, 109, 116, 117, 119, 172-176, 180, 243, 247, 258, 259 & 382.
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), ss 247, 382, 243, 288 & 281.

Cases

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Dwyer v Calco Timbers (2008) 234 CLR 124
Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
In the matter of WBD [2018] QMHC 4
In the matters of Rankin; Kumar; Sciortino [2017] QMHC 8
In the matter of Brock Wall [2017] QMHC 11
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan & Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
R v Brock Wall on 6 August 2018
R v DAY [2010] QCA 369
Refjek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80
SZTQL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another (No 2) (2015) 150 ALD 456
Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84
White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

COUNSEL:
R Logan for the Appellant
G Meoli for the Respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the Appellant
The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

On 13 February 2019 the appellant was convicted after a summary trial in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stapleton v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QDC 190
Decision Date: 27 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stapleton v Queensland Police Service involved a defendant who had been convicted of an offence and subsequently appealed the decision. The appeal was heard by a court that had to determine whether there were any legal errors in the original proceedings that would necessitate a re-trial. The defendant argued that the original trial court had erred by not calling on the defendant for a plea before commencing the hearing and by not determining the issue of unsoundness of mind in a separate hearing. The defendant further argued that the trial court had mischaracterised the issue of unsoundness of mind as a defence, placed the onus of proof on the defendant to prove unsoundness of mind on the balance of probabilities, and denied natural justice by refusing a further adjournment to facilitate the attendance of the defendant’s legal representative during the evidence of the defendant’s psychiatric expert witness.

The court had to decide whether the errors alleged by the defendant constituted grounds for allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction. The court considered the legal framework provided by the Justices Act 1886 and the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) to assess the procedural correctness of the original trial. It evaluated whether the trial court should have held a separate hearing to determine the defendant's unsoundness of mind before proceeding with the substantive charge. The court also examined whether the procedural errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice, potentially vitiation of the conviction.

The court found that the trial court had indeed committed errors in procedure that were significant enough to warrant setting aside the conviction. The court held that the issue of unsoundness of mind should have been determined in a separate hearing and that the procedural errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the errors were such that they vitiate the conviction, and thus the appeal was allowed. The conviction and orders made by the Magistrates Court were set aside, and the proceeding was remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined by a different Magistrate according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The conviction and orders of the Magistrates Court made on 13 February 2019 are set aside.

3. The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined by a different Magistrate according to law.

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:	Stapleton v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 190
PARTIES:	ELIZABETH STAPLETON (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	APPEAL NO: 41/19
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 June 2019
JUDGE:	Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. The conviction and orders of the Magistrates Court made on 13 February 2019 are set aside. 3. The proceeding is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be determined by a different Magistrate according to law.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – practice and procedure - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - conviction – [offence] – mode of hearing – failure to call on defendant for plea before commencing hearing – whether defendant capable of plea before determination of unsoundness of mind - whether separate hearing required for determination of unsoundness of mind under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) – whether appropriate to amalgamate of unsoundness of mind issue into the trial of substantive charge error of law – whether issue of unsoundness of mind mischaracterised as defence pursuant to practice direction – whether defendant has onus of proof on balance of probabilities to prove unsoundness of mind – need for adjournment to facilitate of defendant’s psychiatric expert witness - refusal of further adjournment to facilitate attendance of legal representative’s during that evidence – whether denial of natural justice and opportunity to present evidence – whether errors of law vitiate conviction. Legislation Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 145, 171, 222, 223 & 227. Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld), ss 22, 109, 116, 117, 119, 172-176, 180, 243, 247, 258, 259 & 382. Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), ss 247, 382, 243, 288 & 281. Cases Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Dwyer v Calco Timbers (2008) 234 CLR 124 Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 In the matter of WBD [2018] QMHC 4 In the matters of Rankin; Kumar; Sciortino [2017] QMHC 8 In the matter of Brock Wall [2017] QMHC 11 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan & Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 R v Brock Wall on 6 August 2018 R v DAY [2010] QCA 369 Refjek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517 SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 SZTQL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Another (No 2) (2015) 150 ALD 456 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84 White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
COUNSEL:	R Logan for the Appellant G Meoli for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the Appellant The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent