Goli v Thompson (No. 2)
[2017] QDC 24
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
- Goli v Thompson (No. 2)[2017] QDC 24
- Add to List
Goli v Thompson (No. 2)[2017] QDC 24
Goli v Thompson (No. 2)[2017] QDC 24
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Goli (Commissioner of State Revenue) v Thompson & Anor (No. 2) [2017] QDC 24 |
PARTIES: | In Appeal No 3122 of 2016: ELIZABETH LESLEY GOLI (COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE) (appellant) v BRADLEY THOMPSON (respondent) In Appeal No 3120 of 2016: ELIZABETH LESLEY GOLI (COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE) (appellant) v BRENDAN MICHAEL THOMPSON (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 3120/16 and 3122/16 |
DIVISION: | Criminal |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 February 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers. Appellant’s submissions undated. Respondent’s submissions dated 7 February 2017. |
JUDGE: | Smith DCJA |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | COSTS – whether the respondents should pay the appellant’s costs of successful appeal – whether an indemnity certificate should be granted. Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Q) s 15 Justices Act 1886 (Q) s 226 Goli (Commissioner of State Revenue) v Thompson & Anor [2017] QDC 4 Lauchlan v Hartley [1980] Qd R 149 |
COUNSEL: | Mr M. Van der Valt for the appellant Ms S. Anderson for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Crown law for the appellant JHK Legal for the respondents |
- [1]This is the costs decision consequent upon the decision in Goli (Commissioner of State Revenue) v Thompson & Anor.[1]
- [2]The appellant submits that the respondents should pay her costs in the sum of $1,800. The respondents submit there should be no order as to costs or, alternatively, the respondents be issued with certificates pursuant to s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Q).
- [3]In this case the magistrate, of his own volition, informed the prosecution that in his view the charges were improperly drawn. This argument was not advanced by the respondent. It is true that the respondents advanced an argument as to s 11(1) of the Code, but ultimately the ruling made by the magistrate was on the basis that the charges were improperly drawn.[2]
- [4]Also, counsel who appeared for the respondents in the Magistrates Court did raise the fact that the alternative application was for a stay of the prosecution but that application was not entertained by the magistrate. As I have found, the appropriate application to be considered in this case was one for a stay of the prosecution.
- [5]I also note that on the hearing of the appeal the respondents did not seek to uphold the magistrate’s conclusion as to the pleading of the charges and conceded that his honour acted functus officio. It is true s 11 was argued but that was really a subsidiary legal point in respect of which there was not much authority. But in any event the point was fairly arguable.[3]
- [6]In all of the circumstances, it is my opinion that the appellant should have her costs,[4]but that an indemnity certificate should be granted to the respondents under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Q).
- [7]For the reasons given, my orders will be as follows:
- I order the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal fixed in the sum of $1,800 to be paid jointly by the respondents.
- Pursuant to s 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Q), I grant to the respondents an indemnity certificate in respect of the appeal.
Footnotes
[1] [2017] QDC 4.
[2] The conduct of counsel is relevant to the exercise of the discretion on whether or not to grant a certificate (see Lauchlan v Hartley [1980] Qd R 149 at p 151.8).
[3] This is also a relevant consideration (see Lauchlan v Hartley [1980] Qd R 149 at p. 151.7).
[4] Section 226 of the Justices Act 1886 (Q).