Stephens v Williams - [2008] QDC 320

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Stephens v Williams [2008] QDC 320
PARTIES:	BARRY JOHN ENSELL STEPHENS (Applicant) AND SENIOR CONSTABLE MARK ANDREW WILLIAMS (Respondent)
FILE NOS:	153/08
DIVISION:	District Court of Queensland, Maroochydore
PROCEEDING:	Civil hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Caloundra Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	19.12.2008
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	12.12.2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Appeal from declaration of ownership made by Magistrate pursuant to s694 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000; principles to be applied; whether appellant denied procedural fairness; whether Magistrate erred in taking into account appellant’s conviction for attempted fraud. Cases considered Otto (1996) 90 A Crim R 492 Raymond Lyons & Co v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1975] QB 311 R v Stephen [2006] QCA 123 Legislation s.39 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s.694 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 s.100 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995
APPEARANCES:	Mr. Stephens for the appellant (self-represented) Mr. Reid of Caloundra Wreckers No appearance for the respondent

This appeal concerns an order made by her Honour Magistrate Fingleton in the Caloundra Magistrates Court on 21.5.2008 that a Toyota Landcruiser then in the possession of the Queensland Police Service and under the control of Senior Constable Mark Williams be delivered to Caloundra Wreckers and in particular its manager Mr. Reid.

Her Honour’s order came after a hearing on that day on an application by S.C. Williams pursuant to s.694 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 which is (relevantly) in these terms:
“(1) This section applies if there is a dispute about the ownership of a relevant thing, whether the dispute is between--
(a) two or more persons, each of whom claims to be the owner of the thing; or
(b) a police officer and a person who claims to be the owner of the thing.
(2) A police officer may apply to a magistrate for an order declaring who is the owner of the thing.
(3) The police officer must give anyone the police officer reasonably believes has a legal or equitable interest in the thing a copy of the application and notice of the day, time and place fixed for hearing the application.
(4) The magistrate may make the order the magistrate considers appropriate.
(5) If the magistrate can not decide who owns the thing, the magistrate may make the orders the magistrate considers appropriate for the disposal of the thing.”
Senior Constable Williams had given notice pursuant to sub-section 3 to Barry John Ensell Stephens and Caloundra Wreckers both of whom appeared before her Honour to claim ownership of the vehicle.

Mr. Stephens has appealed to this Court against her Honour’s decision and appeared in person to represent himself, and both Mr. Reid (junior) and his father appeared on behalf of Caloundra Wreckers. Mr. Stephens has been assisted by lawyers from QPILCH Self-Representation Civil Law Service in preparing his Notice of Appeal.

The grounds set out in his appeal notice filed 18.6.08 are as follows:

“1. The Magistrate erred in fact…

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 Stephens v Williams

Details

AGLC: Stephens v Williams [2008] QDC 320
Case: [2008] QDC 320
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephens brought an appeal against a declaration of ownership made by a Magistrate under section 694 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The Magistrate had declared ownership of Stephens' vehicle to Williams, the respondent, following its seizure by police. The basis of the seizure was that the vehicle was being used in the commission of an offence, namely driving whilst disqualified. Stephens contended that the declaration was made without procedural fairness and that the Magistrate erred in taking into account his prior conviction for attempted fraud.

The court had to determine whether the procedural fairness principles set out in Otto applied to the declaration of ownership made by the Magistrate and, if so, whether there had been a breach of those principles. The court also had to consider whether the Magistrate erred in taking into account the appellant's prior conviction in making the declaration. The court noted that the decision-making process in this instance was not a criminal prosecution, and therefore the common law rules of procedural fairness did not apply. Instead, the court found that the statutory provisions in the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 were sufficient to ensure procedural fairness.

The court found that the Magistrate did not err in taking into account Stephens' prior conviction, as it was relevant to the consideration of whether the vehicle was being used in the commission of an offence. The court found that the decision of the Magistrate was not affected by any irregularity or unfairness and dismissed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrate was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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.