Vinson v Hongara

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Vinson v Hongara [2014] QDC 249

PARTIES:

BRETT VINSON

(appellant)

v

WILLIAM TIGER HONGARA

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

15/14

DIVISION:

Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal from dismissal of complaint

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

6 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2014

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal allowed.1.          

Acquittal of the respondent William Tiger Hongara, on one charge of speeding, on 7 May 2013, is set aside. 2.          

Remit proceedings to the Beenleigh Magistrates Court to proceed according to law by way of a hearing before a magistrate other than the learned magistrate who originally conducted the trial in this matter.3.          

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – the respondent was charged under s114 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 with speeding – s114 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 is a strict liability offence – where the respondent was acquitted at first instance despite not having made out a statutory defence – whether the learned magistrate erred in ordering an acquittal – whether the learned magistrate erred in taking irrelevant matters into account – whether the learned magistrate erred in considering the effect of Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld) s.179C when making the finding.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act1886 (Qld), s 222

Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld), ss. 9(9)(a), s.179C

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Cth), s. 157(2)(j)

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, ss. 60(4) 113, 114, 116(1), 118, 120, 124(1)(n)(ii).

CASES:

Tierney v Commissioner of Police [2011] QCA 327

COUNSEL:

E Kelso for the appellant

No appearance by the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant

No appearance by the respondent

Introduction

1. The appellant, Brett Vinson (a Queensland police officer) appeals from the decision of the learned magistrate at Beenleigh on 19 February 2014, dismissing one charge of speeding against the respondent William Tiger Hongara. 

Non appearance of the respondent

1. The respondent appeared self represented on 28 July 2014 in the Beenleigh District Court at a review mention of the appeal. In the respondent’s presence, the appeal was listed for hearing on 10 September 2014. On that date, the respondent’s name was called, but there was no appearance. Appeals to the District Court proceed under division 1, part 9 of the Justices Act 1886. In my view, there appears to be no impediment to this appeal proceeding in the absence of the respondent.

Background

1. The respondent was charged by Complaint-sworn, and Summons dated 24 September 2013 as follows:-

“That on the seventh day of May 2013 at Loganholme in the Magistrates Court District of Beenleigh in the state of Queensland one William Tiger Hongara being the driver of a vehicle namely a car drove at a speed over the speed limit namely 100 kilometres per hour applying to the driver for the length of road namely Pacific Motor Way Loganholme where the said driver was driving and it is averred that the said car is a…