Legal Research
Cases
Van Den Hoorn v Ellis

Van Den Hoorn v Ellis

Case [2010] QDC 451 30 November 2010

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451

PARTIES:

JOHAN HENDRICK VAN DEN HOORN
(Appellant)

v

CRAIG ELLIS
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1761/10

DIVISION:

Criminal Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Cleveland

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 November 2010

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.    The orders on appeal in this proceeding made in the Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 June 2010, both for conviction and sentence, are confirmed.

2.    The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

3.    Unless the respondent files written submissions on costs and serves the same by pre-paid post addressed to the appellant’s postal address contained in his Notice of Appeal by 4 pm on 7 December 2010, there will be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – from Magistrates Court – Constitutional Law - whether relevant State legislation concerning convictions valid and, if so, whether errors in interpretation – appeal against conviction and sentence

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, ss 2, 9, 9(1)(a), 45, 45(1), 48A

Australia Act 1986, s 3(2)

Australian Courts Act 1828, s 24

Bill of Rights

Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s 107

Constitution Act 1867, ss 2, 30, 40

Constitution of Queensland 2001, ss 3, 4, 8

Evidence Act 1977, ss 42, 44, 95(4), 116

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cwth), s 78B

Justices Act 1886, ss 222, 223(2), 225(1), 226

Magna Carta, cl 29

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, s 3(a), 4, 18

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 365(1)(a)

Six Statutes of Edward III

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, ss 104, 105, 105(3), 106(1), 107, 107(2), 107(3), 121, 157(3)

The Criminal Code, s 3(4)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, ss 60, 60(2)(d), 78, 124, 124(1)(n), 124(1)(r), Schedule 4

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 1999, s 5

Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, ss 37, 37(1)

Black’s Law Dictionary (9^th ed)

Magna Carta (2^nd ed) (JC Holt) (Cambridge University Press)

Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6^th ed) (Pearce & Geddes)

The Reception of English Law Abroad (BH McPherson CBE)(Supreme Court of Queensland Library 2007)

Barton v Beattie & Ors [2010] QCA 100

Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600

Carnes v Essenberg; Lewis v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339

Clampett v Hill & Ors [2007] QCA 394

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345

Kobylski v Queensland Police Service [2007] QCA 50

Osgood v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCA 242

Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518

Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1526

Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489

Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977

COUNSEL

Appellant in person

J. O’Brien for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellant appeared on his own behalf

ODPP for the Respondent

Introduction

This is an appeal by a person who has described himself in the Notice of Appeal filed 18 June 2010 as “Sovereign Freeman JOHAN”, an…

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 Van Den Hoorn v Ellis

Details

AGLC: Van Den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451
Case: [2010] QDC 451
Decision Date: 30 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Van Den Hoorn v Ellis, the appellant, Van Den Hoorn, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence as rendered by the Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 June 2010. The conviction and sentence stemmed from allegations concerning the appellant's involvement in criminal activities. The appeal was grounded in constitutional law, questioning the validity of relevant state legislation concerning convictions and the interpretation of such laws. This appeal thus presented a significant constitutional matter that required judicial scrutiny to ensure adherence to the law and the protection of individual rights.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of state legislation in relation to convictions. The appellant argued that there were errors in the way the legislation was applied, which could have potentially led to an unjust conviction. The court was tasked with determining whether the legislation was correctly interpreted and applied by the Magistrates Court, and if not, what the implications of such errors might be on the appellant's conviction and sentence. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the errors, if any, were substantial enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction and sentence.

In examining the appeal, the court meticulously reviewed the legislative framework and the Magistrates Court's application of the law. The court found that the legislation was indeed valid and that any errors in interpretation were not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case. The reasoning process involved a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the procedural steps taken by the Magistrates Court. The court concluded that the conviction and sentence were correctly arrived at, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of accurate legal interpretation but also highlighted the principle that minor errors do not necessarily invalidate a conviction if the overall process was fair and just.

The final orders confirmed the conviction and sentence rendered by the Magistrates Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the court indicated that unless the respondent filed written submissions on costs and served them by a specified date, there would be no order as to costs. This decision reflected the court's view that the appeal did not meet the threshold for a reversal of the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The orders on appeal in this proceeding made in the Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 June 2010, both for conviction and sentence, are confirmed.

2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.

3. Unless the respondent files written submissions on costs and serves the same by pre-paid post addressed to the appellant’s postal address contained in his Notice of Appeal by 4 pm on 7 December 2010, there will be no order as to 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Van Den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451

Most Recent Citation

McCollom v Kovarik [2013] QDC 111

Cases citing this decision · 5 of 5 shown

Handley v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QDC 116 Para 15

…ules) Regulation 2009 (Qld) were not validly enacted.[24] [24] See also Hubner v Erbacher ; Hubner v Morely [2004] QDC 345; Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 at [24]-[25]; Elliott v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 161.…
Reiman v Commissioner of Police
[2021] QDC 242 Para 1

…See also Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 and Elliott v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 161.…
Leahy v Commissioner of Police
[2019] QDC 147 Para 1

…ed the document inadmissible, and accordingly, no reliance can be placed upon it.[31] [31]See McCollon v Kovarik [2013] QDC 111; Van den Horn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451; Lebich v Dixson [2009] QDC 111 at [21] and [38]; Amies v Dixson [2009] QDC 110; Bevacqua v Wykes [2009] QDC 137 at [20].…
Leyden v Venkat
[2015] QDC 28 Para 1

…ter records kept by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry, for the purposes of s 95 of the Evidence Act 1977 . [22] See also Van Den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 at [33].…
McCollom v Kovarik
[2013] QDC 111 Para 1

…quirement to give judicial notice, the practical effect of the decision and the prior decision of the District Court” (in Van den Hoonr v Ellis [2010] QDC 451 (per Dorney QC DCJ para 32)). The appellant submits that “the magistrate’s discretion has miscarried so as to require the intervention of the court”[26]. […

View all 5 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Osgood v Queensland Police Service
[2010] QCA 242 Para 1

…As mandated by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Osgood v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCA 242, an appeal such as this, brought by way of s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 from a decision of a magistrate, is a rehearing on the evidence given at trial and on any new evidence adduced by leave: at [20]. Furthermore…
Barton v Beattie and Ors
[2010] QCA 100 Para 1

…have validity, in a case which specifically refers to the Constitution of Queensland 2001 , the Queensland Court of Appeal in Barton v Beattie & Ors [2010] QCA 100 concluded that the Queensland Parliament is empowered to make “laws for the peace, welfare and good government” of Queensland, as provided for by s 8…
Clampett v Hill
[2007] QCA 394 Para 1

…As for the authority of Queensland Courts, the Queensland Court of Appeal decision in Clampett v Hill & Ors [2007] QCA 394 binds me to conclude that, since the respective Queensland Courts were duly constituted by the Queensland Parliament when it passed their constituting legislation, the commissions given to ju…
Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation
[2007] FCA 1526 Para 1

…I have, as Greenwood J did in Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1526 at [5], closely examined the evidence, the appellant’s written submissions, the content of the constitutional and other legal points that he made, as well as his oral submissions concerning his arrest by one of the investigating polic…
Kobylski v Queensland Police Service
[2007] QCA 50 Para 1

…In conformity with the approach adopted by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Kobylski v Queensland Police Service [2007] QCA 50, since there is vexation in the appellant’s pursuit of unmeritorious constitutional arguments, it is appropriate that no notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cwth) were given…
Hubner v Erbacher
[2004] QDC 345 Para 1

…t I have considered, even though I have also referred to cases that have occurred subsequent to 2004, were utilised by White DCJ in Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345 in determining that one of the pieces of legislation involved here [namely, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, and Regulations…
Sharples v Arnison
[2001] QCA 518 Para 1

…1867 (Qld): at [14]. As the Court there unanimously remarked, any such argument so agitated had been previously rejected in Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518: also at [14].…
Carnes v Essenberg
[1999] QCA 339 Para 1

…Concerning Magna Carta , the Queensland Court of Appeal decision in Carnes v Essenberg; Lewis v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339 obliges me to conclude that it is “completely inaccurate” to say that colonial parliaments, or indeed the Parliament of Westminster, could not alter, modify or even repeal the provisions of cen…
Widgee Shire Council v Bonney
[1907] HCA 11 Para 1

…iew that local laws or by-laws are capable of altering the received English law [as was recognised by the High Court in Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977]: also at 610 [19]. The legal outcomes that I have considered, even though I have also referred to cases that have occurred subsequent to 2004, were…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…ference, and attaching a good deal of weight, to the magistrate’s view: at [21]. As to sentencing, the principles expounded in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 apply: at 504.…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 1

…ile giving due deference, and attaching a good deal of weight, to the magistrate’s view: at [21]. As to sentencing, the principles expounded in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 apply: at 504.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 15

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld)
104, 105, 105(3), 106(1), 107, 107(2), 1... 10 mentions (from Para 1)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
2, 45, 45(1), 48A, 9, 9(1)(a) 7 mentions (from Para 1)
Constitution Act 1867 (Qld)
2, 2001, 30, 4, 40, 8 7 mentions (from Para 1)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)
124, 124(1)(n), 124(1)(r), 60, 60(2)(d),... 7 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
116, 42, 44, 95(4) 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
222, 223(2), 225(1), 226 5 mentions (from Para 1)
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)
18, 3(a), 4 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 (Qld)
37, 37(1) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Australia Act 1986 (Cth)
3(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp)
24 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
78B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
365(1)(a) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd
1 mention (from Para 1)
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 c.63
1 mention (from Para 1)
Justice Act 1886 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	Van den Hoorn v Ellis [2010] QDC 451
PARTIES:	JOHAN HENDRICK VAN DEN HOORN (Appellant) v CRAIG ELLIS (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1761/10
DIVISION:	Criminal Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Cleveland
DELIVERED ON:	30 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 November 2010
JUDGE:	Dorney QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The orders on appeal in this proceeding made in the Magistrates Court at Cleveland on 16 June 2010, both for conviction and sentence, are confirmed. 2. The appeal is otherwise dismissed. 3. Unless the respondent files written submissions on costs and serves the same by pre-paid post addressed to the appellant’s postal address contained in his Notice of Appeal by 4 pm on 7 December 2010, there will be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – from Magistrates Court – Constitutional Law - whether relevant State legislation concerning convictions valid and, if so, whether errors in interpretation – appeal against conviction and sentence Acts Interpretation Act 1954, ss 2, 9, 9(1)(a), 45, 45(1), 48A Australia Act 1986, s 3(2) Australian Courts Act 1828, s 24 Bill of Rights Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s 107 Constitution Act 1867, ss 2, 30, 40 Constitution of Queensland 2001, ss 3, 4, 8 Evidence Act 1977, ss 42, 44, 95(4), 116 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cwth), s 78B Justices Act 1886, ss 222, 223(2), 225(1), 226 Magna Carta, cl 29 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, s 3(a), 4, 18 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 365(1)(a) Six Statutes of Edward III State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, ss 104, 105, 105(3), 106(1), 107, 107(2), 107(3), 121, 157(3) The Criminal Code, s 3(4) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, ss 60, 60(2)(d), 78, 124, 124(1)(n), 124(1)(r), Schedule 4 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Regulation 1999, s 5 Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, ss 37, 37(1) Black’s Law Dictionary (9^th ed) Magna Carta (2^nd ed) (JC Holt) (Cambridge University Press) Statutory Interpretation in Australia (6^th ed) (Pearce & Geddes) The Reception of English Law Abroad (BH McPherson CBE)(Supreme Court of Queensland Library 2007) Barton v Beattie & Ors [2010] QCA 100 Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600 Carnes v Essenberg; Lewis v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339 Clampett v Hill & Ors [2007] QCA 394 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Hubner v Erbacher [2004] QDC 345 Kobylski v Queensland Police Service [2007] QCA 50 Osgood v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCA 242 Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518 Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1526 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 Widgee Shire Council v Bonney (1907) 4 CLR 977
COUNSEL	Appellant in person J. O’Brien for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Appellant appeared on his own behalf ODPP for the Respondent