Todd v Commissioner of Police

[2005] QDC 400

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1168 of 2005

JACQUELINE ANN TODD Applicant
and
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 07/12/2005
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: Clarification of "final order" as issued by Court following successful appeal against Magistrate's refusal of licence under r 87 of Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 - order as issued gave misleading impression the appeal dealt with a licence disqualification and fine - appellant concerned the disqualification period would be interpreted by Transport officials to run from the disposition of the appeal, rather than the date of the original sentencing.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

07122005 D.1 T1/DBK (Robin DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: Mr Lewis has asked the Court to mention the 1
appeal which the Court decided on the 15th of August 2005.
The reasons are now available at [2005] QDC 252.

The difficulty faced by his client is that the Department of Transport take the view that a nine months disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence imposed by a Magistrate at Cleveland on the 16th of March 2005 runs from the date of this Court's disposition of the appeal rather than the date when the Magistrate pronounced the order.

10
20

subject of the appeal, describes it as one whereby she was
sentenced to the suspension mentioned and a fine of $1,500 and
refused a licence pursuant to section 87 of the Transport

Although the Notice of Appeal, in identifying the order the clear from the following statement of the grounds of appeal that the only area of complaint was the Magistrate's refusal to grant a licence under section 87. That's the only matter that was considered on the hearing of the appeal. The certificate of readiness signed by the parties and filed on 17 June 2005 identifies it as the only "matter in issue".

30
40
The final order issued by the Court to record my decision has
a schedule on the front page introduced by the words "upon
50
consideration of an appeal lodged by the above-named
appellant...in respect of the following", which sets out
various relevant sections from the Act mentioned and also the
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Section 87 is not

2 ORDER 60

07122005 D.1 T1/DBK (Robin DCJ)

among them. 1
The order issued by the Court goes on to provide:
"1. Appeal allowed
2. The appellant should have a restricted licence under

section 87 of the Act to permit driving to and from her 10
work as a pharmacist by the most direct route while in
any required work uniform during the hour before and the
hour after her rostered shifts.
3. No order as to costs."

A reader of that order who was not aware of the course of
proceedings or the Notice of Appeal might well assume that
matters were at large in this Court and that it had given
consideration to the fine and the nine months disqualification
which are prominently set out in the schedule at the
beginning of the order as issued. 20
30

Miss Dixon, appearing for the respondent today, has reminded the Court of the opportunities which are created by section 87 for the respondent to seek a variation of a disqualification period if a section 87 licence is granted. She has fairly acknowledged that on the hearing of the appeal no attempt was made to use that opportunity.

40
It appears to me that a gross injustice is done to the
appellant if, in these circumstances, the nine months
50
disqualification period is regarded as running from the date
of this Court's order when this Court was never concerned with
the correctness of that particular or any other
disqualification, just as it was not concerned in any respect

3 ORDER 60

07122005 D.1 T1/DBK (Robin DCJ)

with the fine. 1

No doubt ordinary procedures were followed in the formulation of the order. Unfortunately in this instance it may be working a serious and unintended injustice to Ms Todd in the form of an increased penalty.

10
What the order ought to say on the first page of it is:
"Upon consideration of an appeal lodged by the
above-named appellant pursuant to section 222 of the
Justices Act 1886 against the order made by the

Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 March 2005 whereby 20
the learned Magistrate refused to grant a licence
pursuant to section 87 of the Transport Operations (Road
Use Management) Act 1995",

and the existing schedule in the final order ought not to be
there. If the Court had jurisdiction similar to that which
exists under the slip rule in the UCPR to amend the order -
something that has not been gone into, although Mr Lewis has
referred to section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act -
it would obviously be an appropriate case for doing so. 30

Hopefully it is not necessary to explore the jurisdictional issue. Hopefully Ms Todd may achieve the outcome which she desires which is the one the Court intended by production to

40
appropriate authorities of a copy of today's reasons.
(FOOTNOTE: Mr Lewis' case is strengthened by reference to the
Notice of Appeal filed, as opposed to the version he handed
up. The filed document notifies an appeal "against the 50
order"; below, the suspension and fine appear under the
heading "Sentence"; all that appears under the heading "Order"
is the declining of the application under s.87.)

-----

4 ORDER 60

In the case of Todd v Commissioner of Police, the applicant, Jacqueline Ann Todd, appealed against a decision of the Magistrates Court, which had refused to grant her a restricted driving licence under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995. The Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal on 15 August 2005, and the District Court was tasked with clarifying the final order issued following the appeal to ensure it accurately reflected the Court of Appeal's decision. The central issue was whether the nine-month disqualification period imposed by the Magistrates Court should run from the date of the original sentencing or from the date of the appeal disposition. The Court held that the latter interpretation would unfairly extend the disqualification period for the appellant.

The District Court considered the implications of the final order issued after the appeal. Although the appeal had only concerned the refusal of the restricted licence, the order issued seemed to suggest that the Court of Appeal had considered the entire sentence, including the disqualification period and the fine. The Court noted that this could lead to a misinterpretation by transport officials, potentially increasing the appellant's penalty. The Court found that it was necessary to amend the order to reflect that the appeal was only about the refusal of the restricted licence and not about the disqualification period or the fine. The Court suggested that providing a copy of its reasons for the appeal decision could help achieve the intended outcome.

The Court ultimately concluded that the final order should be amended to clarify that the appeal was only concerning the refusal of the restricted licence under section 87 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 and that it did not deal with the disqualification period or the fine. The Court hoped that supplying a copy of its reasons to the appropriate authorities would address the appellant's concerns and prevent any unintended increase in her penalty.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

JACQUELINE ANN TODD	Applicant
and
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE	Respondent
BRISBANE
..DATE 07/12/2005
ORDER

HIS HONOUR: Mr Lewis has asked the Court to mention the	1
appeal which the Court decided on the 15th of August 2005. The reasons are now available at [2005] QDC 252.
The difficulty faced by his client is that the Department of Transport take the view that a nine months disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence imposed by a Magistrate at Cleveland on the 16th of March 2005 runs from the date of this Court's disposition of the appeal rather than the date when the Magistrate pronounced the order.	10
20
subject of the appeal, describes it as one whereby she was sentenced to the suspension mentioned and a fine of $1,500 and refused a licence pursuant to section 87 of the Transport
Although the Notice of Appeal, in identifying the order the clear from the following statement of the grounds of appeal that the only area of complaint was the Magistrate's refusal to grant a licence under section 87. That's the only matter that was considered on the hearing of the appeal. The certificate of readiness signed by the parties and filed on 17 June 2005 identifies it as the only "matter in issue".	30
40
The final order issued by the Court to record my decision has
a schedule on the front page introduced by the words "upon
50
consideration of an appeal lodged by the above-named
appellant...in respect of the following", which sets out
various relevant sections from the Act mentioned and also the
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Section 87 is not

among them.	1
The order issued by the Court goes on to provide:

section 87 of the Act to permit driving to and from her	10
work as a pharmacist by the most direct route while in any required work uniform during the hour before and the hour after her rostered shifts.
3. No order as to costs."

A reader of that order who was not aware of the course of proceedings or the Notice of Appeal might well assume that matters were at large in this Court and that it had given consideration to the fine and the nine months disqualification which are prominently set out in the schedule at the beginning of the order as issued.	20
30
Miss Dixon, appearing for the respondent today, has reminded the Court of the opportunities which are created by section 87 for the respondent to seek a variation of a disqualification period if a section 87 licence is granted. She has fairly acknowledged that on the hearing of the appeal no attempt was made to use that opportunity.	40
It appears to me that a gross injustice is done to the
appellant if, in these circumstances, the nine months
50
disqualification period is regarded as running from the date
of this Court's order when this Court was never concerned with
the correctness of that particular or any other
disqualification, just as it was not concerned in any respect

with the fine.	1
No doubt ordinary procedures were followed in the formulation of the order. Unfortunately in this instance it may be working a serious and unintended injustice to Ms Todd in the form of an increased penalty.	10
What the order ought to say on the first page of it is:

Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 March 2005 whereby	20
the learned Magistrate refused to grant a licence pursuant to section 87 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995",

and the existing schedule in the final order ought not to be there. If the Court had jurisdiction similar to that which exists under the slip rule in the UCPR to amend the order - something that has not been gone into, although Mr Lewis has referred to section 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act - it would obviously be an appropriate case for doing so.	30
Hopefully it is not necessary to explore the jurisdictional issue. Hopefully Ms Todd may achieve the outcome which she desires which is the one the Court intended by production to	40
appropriate authorities of a copy of today's reasons.
(FOOTNOTE: Mr Lewis' case is strengthened by reference to the
Notice of Appeal filed, as opposed to the version he handed
up. The filed document notifies an appeal "against the	50
order"; below, the suspension and fine appear under the heading "Sentence"; all that appears under the heading "Order" is the declining of the application under s.87.)