Trio Brothers Pty Ltd v Maskill - [2020] QDC 62

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Trio Brothers Pty Ltd v Maskill [2020] QDC 62

PARTIES:

Trio Brothers Trading Pty Ltd

(Appellant)

v

Michelle Maskill

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2493/19

DIVISION:

Civil

DELIVERED ON:

27 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 January 2020

JUDGE:

Byrne QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. The parties are to exchange and file written submissions as to costs, limited to three pages, by 4.00pm on 14 May 2020 if not earlier agreed, with a view to the issue of costs being determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was brought pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) - where the appellant was charged with 5 offences of supplying an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe pursuant to s 26ZPF(1)(b) of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (Qld) – whether on the whole of the evidence the Magistrate’s verdicts were unreasonable – where no expert scientific evidence was called by the prosecution – whether the evidence failed to establish to the criminal standard that devices supplied by the appellant were capable of administering dangerous drugs – whether the evidence failed to establish to the criminal standard that devices supplied by the appellant were an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe, as defined

Acts Interpretation Act 1954
Drugs Misuse Act 1986
Justices Act 1886, ss 222, 223.
Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, s 26ZPF

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Bernard Elsey Ptd Ltd v Federal Comissioner of Taxation (1969) 121 CLR 119
Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612
Project Blue Sky Inc and others v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Dalton [2020] QCA 13
R v De Voss [1995] QCA 518
R v George [2014] 2 Qd.R. 150
R v Hill, Bakir, Gray and Broad; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) QCA 306
R v Kaddour [2018] 3 Qd.R. 575
R v Marchesano (2000) A Crim R 237
R v Morrison (2002) 136 A Crim R 222
Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679
Scaffidi v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Local Government and Communities (2017) 52 WAR 368
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400

COUNSEL:
Mr. S Keim SC for the Appellant
Mr. G Rice QC and Mr. G Elmore for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:
McCullough Robertson for the Appellant
Gibbs Wright Lawyers for the Respondent

Background

On 15 July 2019 the appellant was convicted by an acting Magistrate in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court of five charges laid under section 26ZPF(1)(b) of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1988 (“TOSPA”). The contested summary hearing occupied five days, with the decision delivered on the…

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 Trio Brothers Pty Ltd v Maskill 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: [2020] QDC 62
Decision Date: 27 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trio Brothers Pty Ltd v Maskill involved an appeal by the appellant, who was convicted of five counts of supplying an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe, as defined by section 26ZPF(1)(b) of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (Qld). The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with the matter being brought pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The central issue before the court was whether, on the whole of the evidence, the verdicts reached by the Magistrate were unreasonable. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence provided by the prosecution was sufficient to establish to the criminal standard that the devices supplied by the appellant were capable of administering dangerous drugs and whether these devices constituted an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe as defined by the Act.

The court noted that no expert scientific evidence was presented by the prosecution. Instead, the case relied on the interpretation of circumstantial evidence and the application of the presumptions outlined in the relevant statutes. The court examined whether the evidence was sufficient to support the presumptions that the devices were capable of administering dangerous drugs and that they were an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe. The court concluded that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the Magistrate's verdicts. The court held that the presumptions under the legislation were properly applied, and the appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary elements to the criminal standard was not persuasive.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the court ordered that the parties exchange and file written submissions regarding costs. These submissions were to be limited to three pages and were due by 4.00pm on 14 May 2020, unless an earlier agreement was reached. The intention was for the issue of costs to be determined on the papers, without the necessity of a further hearing. This outcome underscores the importance of the presumptions in drug-related legislation and the court's role in ensuring that the evidence aligns with the legal standards required for a conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. The parties are to exchange and file written submissions as to costs, limited to three pages, by 4.00pm on 14 May 2020 if not earlier agreed, with a view to the issue of costs being determined on the papers.

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:	Trio Brothers Pty Ltd v Maskill [2020] QDC 62
PARTIES:	Trio Brothers Trading Pty Ltd (Appellant) v Michelle Maskill (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2493/19
DIVISION:	Civil
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 January 2020
JUDGE:	Byrne QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. The parties are to exchange and file written submissions as to costs, limited to three pages, by 4.00pm on 14 May 2020 if not earlier agreed, with a view to the issue of costs being determined on the papers.
CATCHWORDS:	MAGISTRATES – APPEAL AND REVIEW – QUEENSLAND – APPEAL – where the appeal was brought pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) - where the appellant was charged with 5 offences of supplying an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe pursuant to s 26ZPF(1)(b) of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (Qld) – whether on the whole of the evidence the Magistrate’s verdicts were unreasonable – where no expert scientific evidence was called by the prosecution – whether the evidence failed to establish to the criminal standard that devices supplied by the appellant were capable of administering dangerous drugs – whether the evidence failed to establish to the criminal standard that devices supplied by the appellant were an ice pipe or a component of an ice pipe, as defined Acts Interpretation Act 1954 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 Justices Act 1886, ss 222, 223. Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998, s 26ZPF Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Bernard Elsey Ptd Ltd v Federal Comissioner of Taxation (1969) 121 CLR 119 Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 Project Blue Sky Inc and others v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Dalton [2020] QCA 13 R v De Voss [1995] QCA 518 R v George [2014] 2 Qd.R. 150 R v Hill, Bakir, Gray and Broad; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) QCA 306 R v Kaddour [2018] 3 Qd.R. 575 R v Marchesano (2000) A Crim R 237 R v Morrison (2002) 136 A Crim R 222 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 Scaffidi v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Local Government and Communities (2017) 52 WAR 368 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400
COUNSEL:	Mr. S Keim SC for the Appellant Mr. G Rice QC and Mr. G Elmore for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	McCullough Robertson for the Appellant Gibbs Wright Lawyers for the Respondent