Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v Lanyon

Taylor v Lanyon

Case [2006] QDC 321 7 September 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
Taylor v Lanyon [2006] QDC 321

PARTIES:
DAVID ANDERSON STERLING TAYLOR

Appellant
v

OLIVER HEYWARD LANYON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:
504/05

DIVISION:
Criminal

PROCEEDING:
Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:
20 December 2005 & 27 February 2006 with further written submissions received to 17 March 2006

JUDGE:
Rackemann DCJ

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMES ACT 1914 (CTH) ss 4C(2), whether same ‘act or omission’ constituted an offence under s 43(1) of the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld) and s 38MC(2) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth), ABUSE OF PROCESS, VOLUNTARINESS, MISTAKE OF FACT as to whether damage constituting an environmental offence of strict liability would occur, INTERVENING EVENT - whether constituted by influence of non-chartered flow on a vessel, sudden and extraordinary emergency, s 19B of CRIMES ACT 1914 (CTH), grounds for setting aside exercise of discretion at first instance, whether Magistrate properly considered s 19B and gave adequate reasons

Cases cited:
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194
Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 568
Commissioner of Taxation v Doudle (2005) 195 FLR 76
DAT v Police (2002) 83 SASR 237
DPP for NT v WJI (2004) 219 CLR 43
Grace Brothers Pty Ltd v Magistrates, Local Courts of New South Wales & Another (1988) 84 ALR 492
He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523
Island Maritime Limited v Filipowski [2006] HCA 30
Kilcullen v Sammut [1946] St R Qd 152
Mansfield v Evans [2003] WASCA 193
Maple v Kerrison (1978) 18 SASR 513
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
Phillips v Carbone(No 2) (1992) 67 A Crim R 392
R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635
R v Gordon ex parte Attorney General [1975] Qd R 301
R v Harris [1999] QCA 392
R v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572
R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330
Re Coldham and others ex parte Brideson (No 2) (1990) 170 CLR 267
Re Stubbs (1947) 47 SR (NSW) 329
The State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Hunter Water Board (1992) 65 A Crim R 101
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561

Legislation cited:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 30(1) repealed
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 4C(2), 16A, 19B
Criminal Code (Cth) ss 4.1, 4.2, 9.2, 10.1
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth) s 38MC(2)
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld) ss 43, 123

COUNSEL:
Appellant in person
Mr McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP for the respondent

INTRODUCTION

[1] In the evening of 20 June 2004 a vessel, the “Polaris,” operated by the appellant, became grounded on North Reef, which is within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The grounding and subsequent salvage attempts caused some damage to the reef. That caused by the grounding itself was…

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 Taylor v Lanyon

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Lanyon [2006] QDC 321
Case: [2006] QDC 321
Decision Date: 7 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Taylor v Lanyon, the appellant, Taylor, was charged with offences under the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 (Qld) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cth). The offences stemmed from Taylor's operation of a vessel in a manner that allegedly caused damage to the seabed, thereby contravening environmental protection laws. The case was heard in the Queensland District Court, where the appellant contested the charges, arguing, among other things, that any damage was not a result of his actions and that there were intervening events that absolved him of liability. The court was tasked with determining whether Taylor's actions constituted the same 'act or omission' under the various legislative provisions and whether the defences of intervening event, voluntariness, and mistake of fact could be applied.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the same incident could constitute an offence under both the state and federal marine safety acts, the applicability of the defence of intervening event, and whether the magistrate had properly exercised discretion and provided adequate reasons for the decisions made at first instance. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the influence of a non-chartered flow on Taylor's vessel constituted an intervening event, excusing him from liability under s 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Additionally, the court examined whether Taylor's mistake of fact regarding the potential for causing damage absolved him of strict liability for the environmental offence. The court also scrutinised the voluntariness of Taylor's actions and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate in exercising discretion.

The Queensland District Court found that Taylor's actions did indeed constitute the same 'act or omission' under both state and federal acts, thus affirming the charges. The court held that the defence of intervening event was not applicable as the non-chartered flow did not constitute a sudden and extraordinary emergency that could have been reasonably foreseen and avoided. Furthermore, the court ruled that Taylor's mistake of fact did not negate the strict liability of the environmental offence. The voluntariness of Taylor's actions was deemed sufficient to sustain the charges, and the magistrate's exercise of discretion was found to be proper and adequately reasoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld.

The court ordered that Taylor remain bound over for a period of 12 months and further ordered a good behaviour bond for a period of 24 months. Taylor was also required to pay a fine and contribute to a marine conservation fund.

Orders