Laurent v Commissioner of Police
[2015] QDC 160
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
- Laurent v Commissioner of Police[2015] QDC 160
- Add to List
Laurent v Commissioner of Police[2015] QDC 160
Laurent v Commissioner of Police[2015] QDC 160
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Laurent v Commissioner of Police [2015] QDC 160 |
PARTIES: | ADRIAN BENJAMIN LAURENT (appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 16/2014 |
DIVISION: | Criminal |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Magistrates Court at Gladstone |
DELIVERED ON: | 30.4.15 (delivered ex tempore) |
DELIVERED AT: | Gladstone |
HEARING DATE: | 30.4.15 |
JUDGE: | Judge Farr SC |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – s 222 Justices Act 1886 – where the magistrate refused to grant an adjournment or to stand the matter down notwithstanding that a medical certificate was provided by the appellant – where the trial proceeded in the absence of the defendant – where the appellant was precluded from presenting a defence and submissions on sentence |
COUNSEL: | Ms C Ditchfield for the appellant Ms S Cupina for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Kenny & Partners for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent |
- [1]This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886. The appellant was charged that on the 10th day of August 2013 he disobeyed the speed limit on the Bruce Highway at Tannum Sands The matter was first set for mention in the Gladstone Magistrates Court on the 20th of January 2014 Some negotiations subsequently took place which were not – or did not lead to resolution, and on the 14th of July 2014 the matter was mentioned, at which time a hearing date was set for the 2nd of October 2014 On that date the trial proceeded in the absence of the appellant. He was convicted, and the Magistrate fined him the sum of $700, allowed him two months to pay and recorded a conviction.
- [2]The appellant was legally represented and Ms Ditchfield appeared on his behalf on the morning of the 2nd of October She had been given a medical certificate earlier that morning stating that the appellant was unfit and unwell for the days – for the dates of the 1st and 2nd of October 2014 An application for an adjournment of the trial was made based on the appellant’s ill health The Magistrate refused that application He did not view the medical certificate, although its contents were by and large read into the record The medical certificate was short and contained little detail.
- [3]A further application was then made to stand the matter down to allow the defence solicitor time to obtain a more detailed medical certificate, but that application was also refused. The Magistrate indicated that it, in his view, would potentially take the entire day and that was a relevant consideration. And he stated that, in his view, if the appellant was well enough to attend a medical centre, then he was well enough to appear in Court.
- [4]A final application was made to stand the matter down for a short period of time to allow the appellant’s solicitor to contact the appellant to see if there was any way that he was able to appear for the hearing. That application was also refused by the Magistrate, who indicated that he intended to deal with the matter in “one minute”. In fact, the matter commenced three minutes later. The hearing subsequently proceeded in the absence of the appellant and at the conclusion of the Crown case, the Magistrate proceeded directly to sentence without an opportunity being given for submissions to be made in mitigation of penalty.
- [5]The appellant has appealed on the ground that he was denied natural justice and that the conduct of his trial was necessarily unfair, given his absence and the reasons for his absence, and the fact that he was unable to present a case and defence. I should note at this stage that the respondent, in its written outline of submissions, has conceded that the ground of appeal is a good one and that the appeal should be successful. Those are reasonable submissions in the circumstances.
- [6]A submission has been made on behalf of the appellant that the intention had been to contest the charge, and that the defence that was to be presented to the Court was one of extraordinary emergency. Such a defence, of course, requires evidence on the defence case, given the evidence that was presented on the Crown case in this matter. By denying the request for the adjournment and the request to stand the matter down momentarily, the Magistrate denied the appellant his right to an opportunity to present that defence.
- [7]The Magistrate’s contention that if the appellant was well enough to attend at a medical centre, then it follows that he was well enough to attend Court is illogical to the point of being nonsensical. Based on that logic, no employee would ever be entitled to a sick day if they consulted a doctor on the day of their illness. I might also add that there was no evidence before the Magistrate that the appellant had, in fact, physically attended at a medical centre as opposed to a doctor attending at his house. I note, also, that the medical certificate did not only cover the day of the hearing but also applied to the previous day. In other words, it may well be the case that the appellant did not consult with a doctor on the day of the hearing, but rather that that occurred the day before the hearing. Again, inconsistent with the Magistrate’s remarkable contention.
- [8]Notwithstanding that the medical certificate may have been lacking in sufficient detail, there was no reasonable basis to refuse the application to, at the very least, stand the matter down to determine if a more detailed certificate could be obtained. Allowing the trial to proceed in these circumstances and then proceeding to sentence without receipt of any submissions constitutes a gross denial of natural justice, and the trial was infected by unfairness of the most extreme order.
- [9]In all the circumstances, the outcome of this appeal is inevitable. The appeal is allowed. The conviction is set aside. I order that the matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court at Gladstone for rehearing before a different Magistrate.