Prince v Queensland Police Service
[2015] QDC 187
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
- Prince v Queensland Police Service[2015] QDC 187
- Add to List
Prince v Queensland Police Service[2015] QDC 187
Prince v Queensland Police Service[2015] QDC 187
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Prince v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 187 |
PARTIES: | RUSSELL JAMES PRINCE (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE |
FILE NO/S: | D 30/15 |
DIVISION: | Criminal |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Magistrates Court at Mackay |
DELIVERED ON: | 30 July 2015 |
DELIVERED AT: | Mackay |
HEARING DATE: | 28 July 2015 |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | TRAFFIC LAW – OFFENCES – failing to stop at red traffic light – whether appellant ought to have been convicted Criminal Code 1899 (Q) ss 24, 25 Justices Act 1886 (Q) ss 222, 223, 225 Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Q) rr 56, 126 Burns v R (1975) 132 CLR 258 R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446 Stevenson v Yasso [2006] 2 Qd R 150 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 |
COUNSEL: | Self-represented appellant Mr B. Manttan for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent |
Introduction
- [1]This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction on a charge of failing to stop at a red light. The trial occurred in the Magistrates Court at Mackay on 20 March 2015. The appellant was fined $500, in default seven days’ imprisonment, but was ordered to do 23 hours’ unpaid community service by way of a fine option order.
Nature of appeal
- [2]The appeal is pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (“JA”). An appeal under this section is to be conducted by way of rehearing on the evidence given before the learned magistrate.[1] The court is required to conduct a real review of the trial and of the learned magistrate’s reasons. In doing so the court should give due deference and attach a good deal of weight to the views of the learned magistrate, but it remains for the appellate court to draw its own conclusions on the evidence.[2] It remains for the appellant to show that the magistrate was wrong.[3]
- [1]Section 225 of the JA provides:
“(1) On the hearing of an appeal, the judge may confirm, set aside or vary the appealed order or
make any other order in the matter the judge considers just.”
Charge
- [2]The charge alleged “on 31 December 2013 at West Mackay in the State of Queensland you, being the rider of a vehicle, namely a motorcycle, on a road, namely Nebo Road, Mackay, when approaching traffic lights showing a red light and with a stop line at the traffic lights, you failed to stop as near as practicable to but before reaching that stop line”.
- [3]The charge was brought under regulation 56 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 which provides:
“56 Stopping on a red traffic light or arrow
- (1)A driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light—
- (a)must stop—
- (i)if there is a stop line at or near the traffic lights—as near as practicable to, but before reaching, the stop line; … and
- (b)must not proceed until—
- (i)the traffic lights change to green or flashing yellow or show no traffic light; …
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.”
Evidence
- [4]Constable Scott Black gave evidence that on 31 December 2013 he was rostered to work a 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift in the company of Constable Butler. He said that at about 9.30 a.m. they were conducting mobile patrols eastbound along Bridge Road when they approached traffic lights at the intersection of Nebo Road. As they approached the intersection he observed the traffic lights to be red, so he pulled up the police vehicle to stop at the intersection. A short time later, he looked to his right and saw a sedan heading northbound along Nebo Road and saw that vehicle slow to a stop. Constable Black then looked at his traffic lights and observed them to be green. He took his foot off the accelerator and began to roll in towards the intersection, when again he looked to his right and saw a blue motorcycle swerve out from behind the sedan into the outside lane northbound along Nebo Road and continue through the intersection of Bridge Road. Constable Black looked at his lights again and saw that they were green. He immediately activated the police vehicle’s emergency lights and sirens, proceeded along Nebo Road and intercepted the motorbike. The registration of the motorbike was 476G. He recorded all conversations with the rider of the motorbike and asked the rider whether there was any reason why he went through the red light, and he said, “Because I was gonna run up his bum.” Constable Black then said to the rider, “That means you were following too closely.” The rider of the motorbike was the defendant (T1-5.17).
- [5]In cross-examination the witness accepted the appellant was riding a big bike (T1‑10.12). The witness said that he proceeded into the intersection a very short distance at low speed, namely two or three metres (T1-12.35). It seems the appellant’s case was that the light was yellow, not red (T1-13.41).
- [6]Constable Joanna Butler gave evidence that she was with Constable Black. She said that they were proceeding along Bridge Road towards the intersection of Nebo Road, and at about 9.30 a.m. they were stopped at a red traffic light at the intersection. She observed the traffic light facing them had changed green and their vehicle moved forward. At this stage, she observed a vehicle and a motorcycle proceeding north in the right-hand lane on Nebo Road towards the intersection. The vehicle travelling in front of the motorcycle began to slow down and stop, but the motorcycle continued to proceed through the intersection and swerved into the left lane of Nebo Road and proceeded through the intersection in front of the police vehicle. At this time the light facing the police vehicle was green. Constable Black activated the police lights and sirens, proceeded onto Nebo Road, followed the motorcycle and intercepted it a short distance north of the intersection (T1-15.20-30). The defendant was the rider of the motorbike. Constable Butler wrote a traffic infringement notice to him for failing to stop at the red light.
- [7]Christopher Herring, a civil engineer working for the Department of Transport and Main Roads, gave evidence as to the traffic light sequence (T1-17). There were no faults relevant to this case (T1-18).
- [8]A recording of a road side conversation was tendered as was the document proving the light sequence.
- [9]The appellant gave evidence that on this day he was in the middle lane heading towards Mackay and went through an orange light, not a red light. He said he came up to the lights and there was a car in front of him. There was water over his tyres because of a flowerbed being watered, and he decided to take evasive action rather than try and lock a tyre up, and then proceeded through the light (T1-19).
- [10]In cross-examination he said the vehicle in front of him had slowed down and stopped about a car length in front (T1-20.40). He says he was about two car and a-half lengths from the lights when he saw them changing colour and one and a-half car lengths from the car in front (T1-21.17). He agreed he was aware it was an offence to drive through an orange light (T1-21.26).
- [11]A map prepared by the appellant was tendered.
- [12]In the address the appellant said that the driver of the car in front had jammed on the brakes (T1-23.27).
- [13]By consent a photograph of the intersection was tendered on the hearing of the appeal which I marked as Exhibit 1.
- [14]I note in the road side recording the appellant did not allege that he had gone through a yellow light. He was asked by the officer “Is there any reason why you ran through the red light?” The appellant replied “Because I was going to run up his bum.”
Decision
- [15]The learned magistrate then gave his reasons for decision. He accepted the evidence of Constable Black, finding that the evidence of Constable Butler corroborated this. The evidence of Mr Herring indicated the lights could not have been as described by the appellant. He accepted the evidence that there was a traffic light which was green facing Constable Black and he found beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence that the appellant went through a red light. Therefore, he found the appellant guilty of the offence. The penalty that I mentioned previously was imposed.
Appellant’s submissions
- [16]The appellant in his outline seems to suggest that because the car to the left of the police did not move, the light facing the police officer was red.
- [17]He points out that his version before the court was that he had to jump on the brakes and risk a brake lockup or swerve. The light was not red when he continued through.
- [18]He also submitted that the Magistrate prevented him from giving evidence as to the law regarding orange lights and says the Magistrate had made up his mind against him during the addresses. The Magistrate also got angry at him when he gave an estimate as to how far he was from the car in front.
- [19]He continued to deny he drove through a red light.
Respondent’s submissions
- [20]The respondent, on the other hand, in its outline points out that the appellant does not list any grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal. It is submitted that it was open for the learned magistrate to accept the evidence of Constable Black and it was open to the learned magistrate to reject the evidence of the appellant. It is submitted the learned magistrate in this case was required to determine whether the appellant had crossed the stop line on a red light. There is no requirement of intention or deliberateness. It is submitted in the circumstances that no error occurred.
- [21]In oral argument the respondent conceded that an excuse under s 25 was raised on the evidence, but that the evidence excluded this and indeed the Magistrate found the appellant was travelling too fast to stop in an emergency.[4]
Disposition
- [22]I have read the evidence and considered the submissions of both parties. In my opinion the learned magistrate was entitled to accept the evidence of Constable Black as it was corroborated by Constable Butler beyond reasonable doubt. Once having accepted that evidence, he could rely on the evidence of the traffic light expert as proving circumstantially that because Constable Black had a green light facing him, there was a red light facing the appellant. There was no suggestion of the lights not working properly. This was a 60 km/h speed zone.
- [23]I also consider that the appellant made an admission in the road side recording that he went through a red light. I find beyond reasonable doubt he made the statement recorded and that it was an express or at the least an implied unqualified admission of the offence i.e. he went through a red light.[5]
- [24]As to the excuses of extraordinary emergency or mistake of fact (ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q)), it seems to me they could clearly be disproved beyond reasonable doubt. As to mistake of fact there was no room for this – the appellant alleged a yellow light faced him not a red light. The appellant’s evidence was rejected. As to emergency the prosecution must disprove that an ordinary person possessing the ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act otherwise i.e. go past the stop line. The appellant was riding a heavy motor bike and should have kept a safe stopping distance behind the car in front and should have taken into account contingencies such as water upon the road. A reasonably ordinary motor bike rider or competent and careful rider should have been able to stop before the stop line in time. He should not have been following too closely[6] or too fast for the conditions and on the facts it may be inferred that he was. In this regard I note that the yellow light would have been in operation for 4 seconds and I note the garden bed where the watering occurred was some distance from the lights.
- [25]As was said in R v Webb[7] when considering section 25 of the Code an objective test is laid down and the conduct needs to be considered in light of what might be expected of a “competent and careful driver” or a “competent and experienced driver”.
- [26]In all of the circumstances, in my respectful opinion, the learned magistrate was entitled to reach a conclusion that the elements of the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant was guilty of the offence. I did not detect any error in the conduct of these proceedings.
- [27]Whilst the magistrate may be thought to have acted robustly I do not consider any miscarriage of justice has occurred. The appellant has not lost the chance of an acquittal here.
- [28]In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the decision below is confirmed.
Footnotes
[1] Section 223(1) JA.
[2] Stevenson v Yasso [2006] 2 Qd R 150 at [36].
[3] Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 at [4] per Muir JA.
[4] Reasons page 1-2.17.
[5] Burns v R (1975) 132 CLR 258.
[6] See Regulation 126 of the Transport Operations (Road use Management- Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Q).
[7] [1986] 2 Qd R 446 at 450 per Williams J.