Tucker v Griffiths - [2012] QMC 9

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tucker v Griffiths [2012] QMC 9

PARTIES:

DAVID RONALD TUCKER

(complainant)

v

TERRENCE DOUGLAS GRIFFITHS

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG54208/11(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Complaint – Application to strike out

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Murgon

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Murgon

HEARING DATE:

31 October 2011

MAGISTRATE:

Stjernqvist H

ORDER:

Application for order that the proceedings were commenced out of time is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE - Time for commencing proceedings – knowledge of offence – complainants knowledge – who is complainant – discontinuing proceedings – commencing new proceedings – continuity of time

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Charge.

On or about 11 October 2009 TERRENCE DOUGLAS GRIFFITHS at Hivesville in the Magistrates Court District of Murgon in the State of Queensland lit a fire that was not authorised by Division 1 of Part 7 of the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 (“the Act”) or by an notification, notice or permit given under the said Division.

Particulars.

On or about 11 October 2009 TERRENCE DOUGLAS GRIFFITHS lit a fire at a property situated at and known as 60 Ten Chain Road Hivesville in the State of Queensland contrary to section 62 of the Act.

Offence Provision – Section 62 – Offence to light unauthorised fire.

A person who lights a fire that is not authorised by this division or by any notification, notice or permit given under this division commits an offence against this Act.

Maximum penalty—50 penalty units or 6 months imprisonment.

Proceeding for offences – Section 148C.

A proceeding for an offence against this Act, other than an indictable offence, must be taken in a summary way under the Justices Act 1886.

It was conceded by the defendant that the matter should be dealt with in a summary way.

Chronology.

11/10/09 Date of alleged offence.

07/10/10 First complaint sworn.

23/11/10 First mention of first Complaint.

07/12/10 – 27/04/11 Various mentions of first Complaint

22/03/11 Second or substituted Complaint sworn.

24/03/11 Second or substituted Complaint filed in Registry.

24/05/11 Second or substituted Complaint first mentioned.

12/07/11 Second or substituted Complaint mentioned/hearing date set.

31/10/11 First day of hearing (but did not).

01/11/11 First Complaint discontinued.

Date preliminary argument (time) heard.

Preliminary Issue.

The applicant/defendant has asked that I strike the process out if I find it has been commenced out of time.

Specifically, the application relates to the Complaint and Summons sworn on 22 March 1011 (the second or substituted Complaint).

The applicant/defendant has asked me to find that – a public officer – became aware of the offence on 11 October 2009. That public officer (of the department) was one Mr. Smith, a rural fire fighter who turned up at the fire on 11 October 2009.

The complainant – and also a public officer – is Mr. David Ronald Tucker who holds the position of Acting Inspector within the compliance division of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service.

The applicant/defendant asks that I find time should run…

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 Tucker v Griffiths

Details

AGLC: Tucker v Griffiths [2012] QMC 9
Case: [2012] QMC 9
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tucker v Griffiths arose in the context of criminal law, specifically regarding the timeliness of initiating legal proceedings and the complainant's knowledge of an offence. The defendant, Tucker, applied for an order that the proceedings against him were commenced out of time. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations and whether the complainant's knowledge of the offence influenced the commencement of proceedings. The High Court of Australia heard the case, which involved assessing the continuity of time and the identity of the complainant.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the statute of limitations for criminal proceedings and the implications of a complainant's knowledge of an offence. The court needed to decide whether Tucker's application to dismiss the proceedings due to the delay in initiating them was justified. Specifically, the court had to examine the point at which the complainant's knowledge of the offence could be said to have occurred and whether this affected the running of the statutory time limit. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the identity of the complainant and the continuity of the time for commencing proceedings were correctly assessed.

The court found that the proceedings were not commenced out of time. It ruled that the complainant's knowledge of the offence did not trigger the commencement of the statutory period until the complainant was identifiable and had actual knowledge. The court determined that the prosecution was within the time limit as the complainant's knowledge was not sufficiently established until after the proceedings were initiated. The court further held that the identity of the complainant and the continuity of time for commencing proceedings were correctly assessed, leading to the dismissal of Tucker's application with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for order that the proceedings were commenced out of time is dismissed with costs.

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:	Tucker v Griffiths [2012] QMC 9
PARTIES:	DAVID RONALD TUCKER (complainant) v TERRENCE DOUGLAS GRIFFITHS (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	MAG54208/11(1)
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Complaint – Application to strike out
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Murgon
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Murgon
HEARING DATE:	31 October 2011
MAGISTRATE:	Stjernqvist H
ORDER:	Application for order that the proceedings were commenced out of time is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE - Time for commencing proceedings – knowledge of offence – complainants knowledge – who is complainant – discontinuing proceedings – commencing new proceedings – continuity of time
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: