Manning v Queensland Police Service
[2012] QDC 165
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
- Manning v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 165
- Add to List
Manning v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 165
Manning v Queensland Police Service[2012] QDC 165
QDC [2012] 165
DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE CLARE SC
No 1 of 2012
JOHN FREDERICK MANNING | Appellant |
and | |
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Respondent |
BUNDABERG
DATE 27/04/2012
ORDER
HER HONOUR: Mr Manning seeks to appeal against a costs order made against him in the Magistrates Court. He is charged with failing to turn left at a sign. The matter was listed for summary trial on the 13th of September last year but Mr Manning did not give notice of his intention to challenge the visibility of the sign. He could not be permitted to pursue that defence without proper notice. The Magistrate adjourned the trial to allow Mr Manning another opportunity to give the notice required by section 119 of the Transport Operation Road Use Management Act.
A police officer had attended Court to give evidence for the prosecution. His Honour ordered Mr Manning to pay $43 by way of witness expenses.
The traffic charge is still pending. It has not yet been resolved. The $43 cost order was, therefore, an interim cost order. This is what Mr Manning wishes to appeal.
There is no common law right of appeal. Appeal rights are dependent upon statute. There is no provision which would permit an appeal against an interim costs order.
The ability to appeal under section 222 of the Justices Act applies to "an order made ... on complaint". This Court is bound by the way the section has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has determined that the reference to an order made on complaint, in section 222, is reference to a final order, that is, an order which disposes of the complaint.
Specifically, the Court held in Coulter v. Ryan [2006] QCA 567 that an interim order is not a final order and falls outside the appeal framework in section 222. See also the older case of Schneider v. Curtis (1967) Queensland Reports 300 at 305. Accordingly, no appeal lies. That is the end of it. The appeal must be dismissed.
There are some further observations I would make about matters raised by Mr Manning which fall outside of the appeal against the interim costs order. Mr Manning feels aggrieved that the Magistrate did not order costs in his favour when the case was adjourned at an earlier time. It must be said that Mr Manning's position at that earlier hearing was not the same as that of the prosecution on the second adjournment.
Mr Manning was representing himself and therefore, did not have legal costs. There was no suggestion that he had brought any witness to Court. Therefore, at the earlier adjournment, there was no indication to the Magistrate that any legal or witness expenses would be incurred by Mr Manning as a result of that adjournment.
Furthermore, the costs of the second adjournment that were ordered against Mr Manning were minimal and would not have covered the actual expense of a police officer's time for the morning. There is no basis for concluding any bias in the approach to costs.
Mr Manning also complained that the Magistrate should have excluded himself for a conflict of interest because he had convicted Mr Manning as a teenager. Mr Manning did not raise this with the Magistrate. There is no reason to conclude that the Magistrate was even aware of it. The earlier case must have been heard many years ago. Mr Manning is now a mature aged man. The experienced Magistrate would have heard thousands of cases in between.
The test is whether there was either actual bias or apprehended bias - whether the Magistrate was biased in fact or whether a fair minded member of community would perceive a risk of bias from the circumstances. The facts relied on by Mr Manning are too remote in time to sustain a complaint of bias. There is no basis to uphold it and the appeal is dismissed.
There was an application for costs by the Commissioner. I have refused that application today on the basis that Mr Manning did not receive a copy of the prosecution's submissions until the morning of the hearing. Those submissions would have made it plain that there was no basis for an appeal. Had Mr Manning received those submissions in advance, I would have ordered him to pay the prosecution’s costs on appeal. Mr Manning is very familiar with the appeal system. He has a heightened sensitivity to any orders against him. He is an experienced lay litigant in relation to appeals.
By now he must understand that appealing caries with it the risk of further costs against him. He has perhaps been lucky today in that regard. But if he persists in appealing future cases, without proper basis, he will only increase the financial orders against him. That is not to say that he should not appeal if he has a legitimate ground of appeal but he would be well advised to obtain some legal advice before going forward.
APPELLANT: Well, your Honour, can I‑‑‑‑‑
HER HONOUR: This was an appeal against a $43 cost order. Most people, even if they felt some unfairness about it, would hesitate about taking it forward because of the added costs involved.
As I said, there will be no costs order for the appeal today. But Mr Manning there comes a point where you can make a nuisance of yourself in running appeals that are completely baseless. If you had seen the submissions today which would have alerted you to the need to look further as to whether or not there was a legitimate basis for an appeal, I would have had no hesitation in making the costs order. The costs in the schedule, from memory, are about 18 hundred dollars. That's not an insignificant amount, to result from the original $43 order.