Watkins v Queensland Corrective Services Commission
[2002] QDC 65
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Watkins v Queensland Corrective Services Commission[2002] QDC 65
- Add to List
Watkins v Queensland Corrective Services Commission[2002] QDC 65
Watkins v Queensland Corrective Services Commission[2002] QDC 65
DISTRICT COURT | No 4365 of 2000 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE BRABAZON QC
DARREN JOHN WATKINS | Appellant |
and
QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 20/03/2002
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: Mr Watkins was convicted in the Seatons Court on 20 March 2000 of offences against the Railways Act and the Traffic Act. He was ordered to pay fines and costs of Court.
On 8 May 2000 he applied for a fine option order. According to section 60 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, that was a matter that could be dealt with by the Clerk of the Court.
Mr Watkins was dissatisfied with the Clerk's decision, who did not grant the fine option order. In particular, he complained that some inaccurate information coming from Corrective Services had been taken into account by the Clerk. For that reason, he appealed to the Magistrate's Court.
That appeal is provided for by section 85 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. On 23 August 2000 his appeal was refused, and, while the matter is not entirely clear because of the absence of a transcript, it seems likely that no reasons were given. The learned magistrate said that the Clerk of the Court's decision was affirmed.
On the same day, 23 August 2000, Mr Watkins appealed to this Court. It is described as an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices' Act. The matter first came on for hearing on 15 May last year before Judge Trafford-Walker. After some exchanges with counsel for Corrective Services and Mr Watkins he adjourned the matter, requesting that the Attorney-General examine the record to see if there had been an error, as Mr Watkins asserted.
Mr Fisher now appears for the Attorney-General to say that the Attorney is not in a position to consider the matter and declines to play any role in it. It is therefore necessary to deal with the appeal on its merits.
There is a submission on behalf of Corrective Services that there is no power in this court to consider Mr Watkins appeal. I have been given some helpful further submissions and references by Mr Fisher.
The nature of a s.222 appeal is dealt with in several decisions: there is the decision of the Full Court in Schneider v. Curtis [1967] QdR 300, which has in recent times been applied by the Court of Appeal in Owen v. Cannavan, Appeal 199 of 1994, judgment 4 August 1995. See also my own decision in Ferguson v. Heilbronn, (Appeal 3855 of 1996, judgment 26 March 1997) and the decision of Judge McGill in Horne v. Frank and Smith, [2001] QDC 29, 2 March 2001.
All of those decisions, in effect, emphasise the limited nature of the power of this Court to consider an appeal from the Magistrate's Court. In effect, it can only consider an appeal from a decision “on a complaint”.
The submission must be accepted, that the Clerk of the Court, in considering the application for fine option order, was doing something quite different to that: Even more so that is the position when one considers the role of the magistrate who heard Mr Watkins' appeal. There is no power in this Court to consider an appeal under section 222 - that section does not include what happened in this case.
It is necessary to consider whether or not there might be some other power which may be exercised. It is appropriate to turn to the Magistrate's Court Act rather than the Justices' Act. Section 43 of the Magistrate's Court Act provides that:
“Subject to this Act, all judgments and orders made by a Magistrate's Court shall be final and conclusive.”
One then turns to section 45, which provides for certain circumstances in which there may be an appeal from a Magistrate's Court decision. This situation is not one of them. Therefore, the situation is the same as that considered by Mack J in Martin v. Commissioner for Employees' Compensation (1953) SRQ 85; that is, there is no general right of appeal from the Magistrate's Court, and, that being the case, the judgment below is final and conclusive.
For those reasons it is necessary to dismiss Mr Watkins' appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.