Ward v Queensland Police Service

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ward v Queensland Police Service [2025] QDC 149

PARTIES:

HEIDI MICHELLE WARD

(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No. 23 of 2025

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Proserpine

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2025 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

2 October 2025

JUDGES:

Everson DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE – where the appellant relies on wide-ranging grounds – whether the appellant’s convictions should be quashed and the sentences imposed by varied.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code (Qld) ss 25, 31, 269, 271 and 340

Domestic Violence and Family Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ss 8(1) and 13

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act (Qld) ss 634 and 365

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

CASES:

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231

Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police [2007] 1 Qd R 344

COUNSEL:

Ms Roseby for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

1. This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886.

2. An appeal of this type lies only from an order disposing of the complaint itself, not an interlocutory ruling.  However, the appellant may raise the correctness of an order which affected the final result.[1]

   [1]Paulger v Hall [2003] 2 Qd R 294.

3. The appeal is by way of rehearing.  I must make my own determination of the facts considering (subject to section 223) only evidence admitted at first instance and giving due deference to any advantage the magistrate had in seeing and hearing the witnesses.[2]

   [2]Mbuzi v Torcetti [2008] QCA 231 at [17].

4. So far as the appeal against sentence is concerned, I must not interfere unless an error of the type identified in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 has occurred. That is, if the magistrate acts on a wrong principle, allows extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or affect him, mistakes facts or does not take into account some material consideration.

5. I had before me applications to adduce new evidence pursuant to section 223.  Section 223(2) provides that I may give leave to do this if I am satisfied that there are special grounds for granting leave.  In undertaking this task, I considered:

   (a)whether the evidence could, with reasonable diligence, have been produced at trial;

   (b)whether it is apparently credible; and

   (c)whether it might reasonably have led to a different verdict below.[3]

   [3]Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police [2007] 1 Qd R 344 at [34]–[36].

6. After a six day hearing in the Proserpine Magistrates Court, the appellant was convicted of one charge of serious assault of a police officer, one charge of assault of a police officer, one charge of obstructing a police officer, and one charge of trespass –  unlawfully remaining in a dwelling or yard.  She was acquitted of one charge of serious assault of a police officer and two charges…