United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent - [2019] QCA 295

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent [2019] QCA 295

PARTIES:

UNITED PETROLEUM PTY LTD
ACN 085 779 255
(applicant)
v
CAMERON JAMES SARGENT
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 188 of 2019
DC No 4392 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2019] QDC 93 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Boddice J

ORDER:

Application refused with costs to be assessed or agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where the applicant was charged with four offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) – where the applicant applied to the Magistrates Court for a stay of proceedings – where the applicant submitted that the real complainant was the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, not the respondent, and therefore the prosecution was commenced out of time – where the Magistrate dismissed the stay application – where the applicant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the learned judge on appeal at first instance dismissed the appeal – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – whether the prosecution was commenced out of time because the real complainant was the Department – whether the order of the Magistrates’ Court to refuse an application for a stay is amenable to appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222

Cross Country Realty Pty Ltd v Peebles [2007] 2 Qd R 254; [2006] QCA 501, cited
Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300, followed

COUNSEL:

M D Wyles QC, with B J Murphy, for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

K & L Gates for the applicant
Department of Environment and Science (Legal) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: A complaint and summons was issued on 23 October 2014 charging the applicant with four offences as follows:
(a)Unlawfully causing material environmental harm between 26 July 2013 and 8 August 2013 contrary to s 438(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld);
(b)Removing and disposing of contaminated soil between 26 July 2013 and 31 July 2013 without a permit contrary to s 424(1)(a) of the Act;
(c)Removing and disposing of contaminated soil between 26 July 2013 and 31 July 2013 without a permit contrary to s 424(1)(a) of the Act;
(d)Removing and disposing of contaminated soil in July 2013 without a permit contrary to s 424(1)(a) of the Act;
Years later, after the trial of the charges had been underway intermittently over that period, in September 2018 the applicant applied to a Magistrate for a stay of the proceedings. It was contended that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection was the real complainant and the Department knew of the elements of the offences by no later…

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 United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent 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: [2019] QCA 295
Decision Date: 13 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Petroleum Pty Ltd was charged with four offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) in the Magistrates Court. The applicant sought to stay the proceedings, arguing that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, not the respondent, was the real complainant, and therefore the prosecution was commenced out of time. The Magistrates Court dismissed the stay application, and the applicant appealed to the District Court under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The District Court dismissed the appeal, and the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues were whether the prosecution was commenced out of time due to the real complainant being the Department, and whether the Magistrates Court's order refusing the stay application was appealable under s 222 of the Justices Act. The Court of Appeal held that the order was not appealable under the provision, as it did not involve an error of law. The Court also found that the applicant's argument that the prosecution was out of time was not valid, as the respondent was the proper complainant, and the Department had the authority to institute the prosecution on behalf of the State.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's appeal was without merit and dismissed the application. The Court held that the order of the Magistrates Court was not an appealable order under s 222 of the Justices Act, as it did not involve an error of law. The Court also held that the applicant's argument that the prosecution was out of time was not valid, as the respondent was the proper complainant, and the Department had the authority to institute the prosecution on behalf of the State. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any error of law or fact in the decision of the District Court.

The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal and ordered that costs be assessed or agreed. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the scope of appealable orders under s 222 of the Justices Act and the proper role of complainants in criminal proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused with costs to be assessed or agreed.

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:	United Petroleum Pty Ltd v Sargent [2019] QCA 295
PARTIES:	UNITED PETROLEUM PTY LTD ACN 085 779 255 (applicant) v CAMERON JAMES SARGENT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 188 of 2019 DC No 4392 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2019] QDC 93 (Jarro DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	13 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 September 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Philippides JA and Boddice J
ORDER:	Application refused with costs to be assessed or agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN NO APPEAL LIES – where the applicant was charged with four offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) – where the applicant applied to the Magistrates Court for a stay of proceedings – where the applicant submitted that the real complainant was the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, not the respondent, and therefore the prosecution was commenced out of time – where the Magistrate dismissed the stay application – where the applicant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the learned judge on appeal at first instance dismissed the appeal – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – whether the prosecution was commenced out of time because the real complainant was the Department – whether the order of the Magistrates’ Court to refuse an application for a stay is amenable to appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222 Cross Country Realty Pty Ltd v Peebles [2007] 2 Qd R 254; [2006] QCA 501, cited Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300, followed
COUNSEL:	M D Wyles QC, with B J Murphy, for the applicant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	K & L Gates for the applicant Department of Environment and Science (Legal) for the respondent