Von Stieglitz v Dixon - [2016] QDC 298

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Von Stieglitz v Dixon [2016] QDC 298

PARTIES:

PATRICK VON STIEGLITZ
(appellant)

v

KENDALL MARIE DIXON (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS)
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D36/16

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Proserpine

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Mackay

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2016

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.   Application granted.

2.   The appellant’s appeal against conviction is struck out.

3.   I reserve the question of costs until the hearing of the sentence appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL- JUSTICES- Whether District Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against conviction where unequivocal plea entered

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Q) Part 5

Justices Act 1886 (Q) s 222

Transport Operations (Marine Pollutions) Act 1995 (Q) s 67A

Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2

Commissioner of Police v James [2013] QCA 403

Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344

Dore and Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150

Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118

Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47; [2005] QCA 317

COUNSEL:

The appellant is self-represented

Ms S Gibson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Department of Transport legal unit for the respondent

Introduction

This is an application by the respondent to strike out the appellant’s appeal against conviction.

The appellant pleaded guilty to the following charge in the Magistrates Court at Proserpine on 29 March 2016.

“On the eighth day of December 2014 at Shute Harbour in the Mackay Magistrate’s Court District, Patrick Von Stieglitz, being the owner of a ship more than 15 metres in length overall, did not have an insurance policy that, to the limits applying under a regulation, or sufficient to pay for the clean-up costs of the discharge of a pollutant from the ship into coastal waters, and the costs of salvage or removal of the ship from coastal waters if the ship is abandoned or wrecked, contrary to s 67A(2) of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollutions) Act 1995.
Further particulars
Ship: Tateyama Maru, registration 25670 QC
Length: 35.5 metres
Limits applying under a regulation: 10 million dollars pursuant to s 76(1)(c) of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollutions) Regulation 2008.
Insurance policy held: Nil.

The offence was said to be contrary to s 67A(2) of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollutions) Act 1995 (Qld).

He was convicted and fined the sum of $7500.

Respondent’s submissions

The respondent submits that the District Court has no jurisdiction to deal with any appeal against conviction because of appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.

It submits that the plea was unequivocal and the only jurisdiction is to hear the appeal against sentence.

Appellant’s submissions

The Appellant on the other hand says he was given poor advice by his lawyer to plead guilty. He has made a complaint to the legal services commission concerning his lawyers. He says the appeal should wait until the outcome of that investigation.

He also raises other grounds such as no precedent; discrimination; the legislation is flawed; there was no case to answer; and there was…

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 Von Stieglitz v Dixon

Details

AGLC: Von Stieglitz v Dixon [2016] QDC 298
Case: [2016] QDC 298
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Von Stieglitz v Dixon, the appellant sought to appeal a conviction determined by a justice of the peace. The nature of the appeal was centred on the jurisdictional capacity of the District Court to hear an appeal against conviction when an unequivocal plea had been entered. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The court was required to decide whether the District Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against conviction following an unequivocal plea, in light of the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedent. Specifically, the court examined the Judicial Review Act 1991, the Justices Act 1886, and the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995. The court also considered the applicability of several precedent cases, including Ajax v Bird, Commissioner of Police v James, Costigan v Marshall, Dore and Ors v Penny, Long v Spivey, and Phillips v Spencer.

In determining the jurisdictional issue, the Court of Appeal referenced established case law and statutory interpretation. The court held that the District Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear an appeal against conviction when an unequivocal plea had been entered. The court emphasised that such appeals were governed by specific statutory provisions and judicial precedents, which did not empower the District Court in this context. Consequently, the court granted the application and struck out the appellant's appeal against conviction. The matter of costs was reserved until the hearing of the sentence appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application granted.

2. The appellant’s appeal against conviction is struck out.

3. I reserve the question of costs until the hearing of the sentence appeal.

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:	Von Stieglitz v Dixon [2016] QDC 298
PARTIES:	PATRICK VON STIEGLITZ (appellant) v KENDALL MARIE DIXON (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS) (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D36/16
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Proserpine
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:	District Court at Mackay
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2016
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. Application granted. 2. The appellant’s appeal against conviction is struck out. 3. I reserve the question of costs until the hearing of the sentence appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL- JUSTICES- Whether District Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against conviction where unequivocal plea entered Judicial Review Act 1991 (Q) Part 5 Justices Act 1886 (Q) s 222 Transport Operations (Marine Pollutions) Act 1995 (Q) s 67A Ajax v Bird [2010] QCA 2 Commissioner of Police v James [2013] QCA 403 Costigan v Marshall [2010] QCA 344 Dore and Ors v Penny [2005] QCA 150 Long v Spivey [2004] QCA 118 Phillips v Spencer [2006] 2 Qd R 47; [2005] QCA 317
COUNSEL:	The appellant is self-represented Ms S Gibson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Department of Transport legal unit for the respondent