Lheulleux v Queensland Police Service
[2011] QDC 50
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
- Lheulleux v Queensland Police Service[2011] QDC 50
- Add to List
Lheulleux v Queensland Police Service[2011] QDC 50
Lheulleux v Queensland Police Service[2011] QDC 50
[2011] QDC 50
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 236 of 2012
LLPONINE LHEULLEUX | Appellant |
and | |
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Respondent |
SOUTHPORT
DATE 11/04/2011
ORDER
CATCHWORDS | Justices Act 1886 s 222, s 229 Respondent's application to strike out appeal against conviction and sentence where appellant failed to file her outline of argument as required by practice direction |
HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order under section 229 of the Justices Act 1886 striking out this appeal for want of prosecution. The application was filed by the respondent on the 22nd of November 2010.
MS HUGHES: I beg your pardon, your Honour, it was dated the 22nd but it was filed on the 8th of December.
HIS HONOUR: Filed on the 8th of - when was it filed?
MS HUGHES: The 8th of December 2010.
HIS HONOUR: All right.
MS HUGHES: But it was dated the 22nd of November.
HIS HONOUR: Well, I am going by the Court's file index, MsHughes, so there seems to be some confusion about the history of this application by the respondent under section 229 which is based on the failure of the appellant to file her outline of argument as required by the practice direction. It is the section which justifies the application rather that the practise direction as the practice direction in conjunction with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (rr 775 and 785). See Gamble v Davidson [2000] 1 Qd R 510 and in reference to a leter practice direction and Justices Act provisions Brown v Owen [2005] QSC 040.
That application is dated the 22nd of November 2010 and recorded (but not stamped) as filed then. MsHughes for the respondent tells me that it was filed on the 8th of December 2010. It then seems to have gone astray, for whatever reason. There was a considerable delay until the Court nominated today's date for the hearing of the application under section 229. It has been served on the appellant at her address for service given in the notice of appeal but she hasn’t turned up today when called.
She gave a considerable amount of detail in her notice of appeal which appears to be based on mental health issues and the effect on the applicant's mental state which being subject to a four month sentence of imprisonment suspended for two years, might have.
There are statements in the "grounds of appeal" that there's evidence available which needs to be brought before the Court and a suggestion that she should be brought before the Mental Health Court, but there is nothing to support any of those contentions. It would be difficult for the respondent to face the appeal without it.
The appellant has never turned up when required to by the Registrar for the purpose of regularising her process, and, indeed, the application of the respondent follows the appellant's non-appearance at a hearing before the Registrar on the 21st of September 2010.
The conviction, which according to the notice of appeal, is appealed against as well as the sentence, was her third for driving under the influence, did you say?
MS HUGHES: Yes, your Honour. She had one previous conviction and then the two the subject of this appeal.
HIS HONOUR: So the convictions under appeal were the second and third of driving under the influence. She, on the evidence, was very much over the limit.
I suppose the appellant has the right of every litigant in whose absence orders are made to apply if they are sought to be changed, but for all that appears, she has done nothing about her appeal and shown no interest whatever in prosecuting it since it was filed on 27th of April 2010 which is almost a year ago now.
So, the orders are as indicated above. Thank you.