Couchman v Kasser[2001] QCA 202

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA

MUIR J

ATKINSON J

BRISBANE

DATE 28/05/2001

JUDGMENT

ATKINSON J:  The applicant, George Kasser, was convicted in the Magistrates Court on charges of unauthorised damage to property under the Regulatory Offences Act and obstructing police contrary to section 120 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.  He was convicted by the Magistrate and was fined $250 on all charges.

The Magistrate conducted a hearing over two days and it should be observed that during that hearing she was very patient with the applicant, who represented himself, explained to him on many occasions the rules of evidence, tried to ensure that he remained relevant, and carefully explained to him his rights including the right to give evidence.  He declined to give evidence.  The Magistrate considered all the evidence and in a careful written judgment convicted him on the charges.

Mr Kasser then appealed the decision to the District Court where his appeal was dismissed.  He seeks leave to appeal against the decision of the Judge in the District Court who heard the appeal from the decision of the Magistrate alleging that the Magistrate erred in law because he was found guilty of the charges alleged.  The grounds of appeal which he would seek to agitate are set out in full in written submissions to which this Court has had regard. 

Before us he sought to persuade us as to why he should be given leave to appeal.  The main thrust of his argument was that a police officer who gave evidence against him gave evidence which was internally contradictory and contradicted by the evidence of others.  He has taken us in great detail to the alleged contradictions.  Without going to them all in detail it suffices to say that there are no contradictions as alleged, that the evidence appears to be internally consistent and was not shaken on cross-examination.  Nor does it appear to be contradicted by the evidence of other witnesses in any relevant way.  The findings made by the Magistrate were entirely open on the evidence with which she was presented.

Mr Kasser also said in his oral application that no video or audio evidence was presented of the offence or of what he alleged happened at a shopping centre.  The offences happened in the police station and there is no evidence that there was any audio or video record taken of them so that point is without substance.  He alleges before this Court that there was another police officer at the station who may or may not have evidence that he or she could give that is relevant.  He of course did not seek to call that witness at the trial and in the absence of any submission that that person has any relevant evidence to give that ground is also without merit.

He also submitted that he is not a liar and that if he were allowed to defend himself in a new trial it will be shown that the police officer was a liar.  There is nothing in the police officer's evidence to suggest that he was not telling the truth.  The applicant had his opportunity to give evidence at the trial which he chose not to take.  There is nothing in that ground of appeal. 

There is nothing at all in anything raised to suggest that there is anything warranting leave to appeal being given for the applicant to urge his appeal in this Court.  None of the grounds in the written submissions nor those raised before Judge Hoath raise any doubt as to the correctness of the conviction and none of them raise a matter of importance which would warrant this Court granting leave to appeal.  In my view the application for leave to appeal should be refused.

McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the reasons given by Justice Atkinson.  Nothing has been demonstrated in this application that would justify the grant of leave to appeal against the decision in the District Court dismissing the applicant's appeal from his conviction in the Magistrates Court.  In my view the application should be refused.

MUIR J:  I agree with the reasons given by Justice Atkinson and Mr Justice McPherson and with the orders proposed.

McPHERSON JA:  The order is that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.