Bee v Ziebarth
[2009] QDC 297
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
- Bee v Ziebarth[2009] QDC 297
- Add to List
Bee v Ziebarth[2009] QDC 297
Bee v Ziebarth[2009] QDC 297
[2009] QDC 297 | |
DISTRICT COURT | |
APPELLATE JURISDICTION | |
JUDGE DEVEREAUX SC | |
Appeal No 7 of 2009 | |
HEDRICK JOSEPH BEE | Appellant |
v. | |
CONST MJ ZIEBARTH | Respondent |
MOUNT ISA | |
DATE 08/09/2009 | |
ORDER |
HIS HONOUR: The appellant was convicted on 6 February 2009 of three offences. They were committing a public nuisance, obstructing police, and assaulting police.
Upon conviction, the learned Magistrate made an award for costs against the appellant. His Honour said at 1-22, line 50, and following, "I come to the conclusion that the ordinary rule that the costs follow the event should not be departed from in this instance, and it does appear that as much as is possible, the police service have tried to minimise those costs."
In the result, his Honour made an award of costs which comprised travel costs for the witness.
The Notice of Appeal dated 27 February 2009, and filed, as I understand it, on 3 March 2009, pleaded as a ground of appeal that the sentence imposed in respect to the order for costs is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
Mr Hunter, solicitor for the appellant, confines his complaint on appeal, to the costs order, and Mr Anderson of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who appears on behalf of the respondent, concedes that the Magistrate's exercise of discretion was affected by error. I respectfully adopt that concession. If the Magistrate was of the view that costs ordinarily follow the event, and if that view led to the order in this case, that view was wrong.
Any such view was gainsaid by the High Court in Latoudis v Casey (1990) 97 Australian Law Reports 45.
In the circumstances, I allow the appeal, and set aside that part of the Magistrate's decision which comprised the order for costs.
...
HIS HONOUR: What I will do is, having given judgment for the appellant, I will reserve the question of costs and mention this appeal again on Thursday morning, the 10th of September 2009.