JLK v Queensland Police Service
[2018] QDC 128
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
- JLK v Queensland Police Service[2018] QDC 128
- Add to List
JLK v Queensland Police Service[2018] QDC 128
JLK v Queensland Police Service[2018] QDC 128
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | JLK v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 128 |
PARTIES: | JLK (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent) |
FILE NO: | 171/17 |
DIVISION: | Appellate |
PROCEEDING: | Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Magistrates Court at Cairns |
DELIVERED ON: | 4 July 2018 |
DELIVERED AT: | Cairns |
HEARING DATE: | 14 December 2017 |
JUDGE: | Fantin DCJ |
ORDER: | Appeal against conviction dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – where the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence) – where the appellant was fined $2,000 and a conviction recorded – whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 93 Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Coal and Allied Operations P/L v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454 Robinson Helicopter v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 Shambayati v Commissioner of Police [2013] QCA 57 Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121 Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657 |
COUNSEL: | B Mellick (solicitor) for the Appellant G Meoli for the Respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Mellick Smith & Associates for the Appellant The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent |
- [1]After a summary trial in the Magistrates Court at Cairns, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm (a domestic violence offence), committed on 1 November 2016.
- [2]On 28 August 2017 he was sentenced and fined $2,000. A conviction was recorded.
- [3]The appellant appeals against his conviction pursuant to s 222 of the Justice Act 1889.
Circumstances of the offending
- [4]The appellant is a 44 year old man and the complainant is his older sister. On 1 November 2016 the complainant attended a Melbourne Cup lunch at the Cairns racecourse with friends, during which she had a dispute with the appellant’s mother-in-law. In the late afternoon the complainant left the function with friends and went to her mother’s house. Shortly afterwards, the appellant and his adult son arrived at that house. There was a confrontation between the appellant and the complainant. It is alleged that the appellant punched the complainant, threw her to the ground and while she was on the ground, he kicked her.
- [5]The appellant made formal admissions that the complainant suffered injuries comprising bruising above her eyebrow and superficial grazes to her legs and that those injuries constituted bodily harm[1].
Nature of Appeal
- [6]The appeal is pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 and is by way of rehearing on the record, since neither side sought to lead further evidence: s 223. On such an appeal, it is necessary for this court to conduct a real review of the evidence before it, and make up its own mind about the case, particularly paying due regard to the advantage that the magistrate had in seeing and hearing the witnesses give evidence, and in being conscious of the atmosphere of the trial generally.[2]In doing so the court ought give due deference and attach a good deal of weight to the magistrate’s view.[3]The onus is on the appellant to show that there was some error in the decision under appeal.[4]
- [7]A finding of fact by a trial judge that depends to any substantial degree on the credibility of a witness must stand unless it can be shown that the trial judge “has failed to use or has palpably misused” his or her advantage (in seeing and hearing the witness) or has acted on evidence which was “inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence” or which was “glaringly improbable”.[5]
- [8]A verdict may be disturbed if the appellant shows that the trial magistrate acting reasonably ought to have had a sufficient doubt to entitle the appellant to an acquittal.[6]This necessitates my independent examination of the evidence, including credit of witnesses subject to what I said above, to make my own assessment of both the sufficiency and quality of the evidence.[7]
The evidence
- [9]The prosecution called seven witnesses: the complainant, three women who travelled from the races with her, the appellant’s son and two police officers. Their evidence is summarised below.
The complainant
- [10]The complainant attended a Melbourne Cup lunch with some friends on 1 November 2016. After the function they were collected by the complainant’s mother and taken to her mother’s house at about 6pm. When they arrived, the complainant got out of the car. While in the driveway walking towards the back of the car, she heard a four wheel drive come screeching at a fast pace along the road. She saw the appellant come running up the driveway towards her and his son following. The appellant raised his right hand in a fist and punched her twice in the face. He said words to the effect “How does that fucking feel?”. He threw her to the ground and kicked her. Everything went black. Then she woke up and tried to get up. The appellant’s son screamed “You – fucking wait” or “You better – you better – you’re … you fucking watch yourself. You better fucking watch yourself” or words to that effect. She blacked out again. She woke up the next morning in hospital. She did not say anything to the appellant before he hit her, and she did not strike him at any time. She had had some champagne at the races and was “tipsy”. Her level of intoxication was such that she would not have been able to drive but she knew what was happening around her, and was able to walk and carry on a conversation. She was going home that night to cook dinner for her family as it was a school night.
- [11]Eight photographs of the complainant’s injuries were tendered, taken in hospital and some days later. They showed bruising to her face, swelling on her eye and cheek, bruising to her upper thigh and her stomach. The complainant was discharged from hospital at about 5pm the next day. She felt a lot of pain for quite a few weeks afterwards. She had a painful lump at the back of her head, pain in her jaw, she had trouble opening her mouth properly for a number of weeks afterwards, and soreness and tenderness where there was bruising.[8]
- [12]In cross-examination, the complainant said she had a clear recollection of being punched twice to the face, thrown to the ground and kicked. She agreed that she had been charged with assault arising from an altercation with the appellant’s wife and the appellant’s mother-in-law at the races earlier that day. It was put to her that she had punched the appellant in the face, that he had grabbed her to restrain her, that the appellant’s son had grabbed him and pulled him backwards, that she and the appellant had then fallen over together, partly on the grass and partly on the concrete driveway, and that all of her injuries happened when she fell on the ground with the appellant. The complainant disagreed with all of those suggestions.
The three eye witnesses
- [13]The three women who travelled with the complainant from the races gave evidence. Two were friends of the complainant. The third knew the complainant because she was the mother of one of the friends.
- [14]Ms Clark was the mother of one of the complainant’s friends, Ms Brislan. As she got out of the car at the house, she saw a car pull up sharply and come to an abrupt stop on the road outside. She saw a man, who she did not know, get out. He ran up the driveway straight to the complainant, grabbed her, threw her on the ground and started kicking her in the head, twice or three times, and then he kicked her in the middle. She was concerned for her own daughter and thought “She’s going to go in and try to protect [the complainant] and this is a madman...”.[9]The complainant’s mother took a step towards the appellant and he pushed her away. The appellant said to Ms Turnbull words to the effect “You, watch out cause I’ll get you too”. There was a young man standing on the driveway but she did not see him do anything. She did not hear anyone say anything to anybody before the incident. She said it happened so fast.
- [15]In cross-examination, Ms Clark admitted that she had some problems recalling things and said that she thought she had the beginning of age dementia “but just the very early stages. I use that as an excuse for not remembering things at home”[10]. She maintained that the appellant got out of the car “so fast and then ran straight up to” the complainant, threw her to the ground, kicked her initially to the head and then to other parts of her body. She said “I believe in my heart and soul that that man did not just slowly walk up. He got out of that car so fast and then ran straight up to [the complainant].”[11]When asked whether the complainant had punched the appellant, she said “No, absolutely no. She didn’t have time to do that. He’s run up, grabbed her straightaway and thrown her to the ground. There was no time for anything else”[12]and “No, positively no. There was no time.”[13]She described the assault as “horrific”. She said “I can recall the kicking to the head and the kicking in the stomach, as clear as clear”[14]. She did not see the appellant punch the complainant. She could not remember whether the appellant punched her, although she had told police that in her statement. The events were very clear in her mind.
- [16]Ms Turnbull was a friend of the complainant who had been at the races with her. As they got out of the car at the house, a white ute sped up and parked on the right hand side of the driveway. Two gentlemen got out. “They were on a mission. They were – very fast walking or running.”[15]They both came up. The appellant ran towards the complainant. The appellant’s son ran towards Ms Turnbull yelling “Stay back. Move away”. The appellant grabbed the complainant, threw her to the ground near the garden bed. It was all very quick. He kicked her several times, there was some altercation and then he ran off with his son. The complainant didn’t say anything. The appellant’s son did not have any contact with the complainant or the appellant. At the races, Ms Turnbull had consumed about 4 glasses of champagne and water.
- [17]In cross-examination, she repeated that the appellant “was on a mission. He was walking very fast”[16]. She accepted that since the incident had occurred, she had discussed it, once, with the complainant. The appellant was wearing boots similar to those which had been tendered. She thought the appellant had gone to hit the complainant first before he grabbed her, but she was unsure if the punch connected. She thought there was only one punch that may have been thrown. The appellant then grabbed her and threw her to the ground. She confirmed seeing the appellant kick the complainant while on the ground. She denied that the son grabbed the appellant and then the appellant and the complainant fell to the ground together, She said the son did not go near the appellant or the complainant.
- [18]Ms Brislan said they arrived at the house between 5:30 and 6pm. She was the last to get out of the car. She heard yelling and didn’t know what was going on. By the time she got out of the car, the complainant was on the ground, drifting in and out of consciousness. She saw swelling over her eye and temple. She did not see the actual incident occur. Her focus was on making sure her mother was ok. In cross-examination she admitted that she discussed the events with the complainant after the incident.
The appellant’s son
- [19]The appellant’s son was also a prosecution witness. He said that his sister telephoned him in the afternoon and told him about certain things that had happened at the races. He telephoned the appellant. They met up at home. They arranged to go into town and were driving to the hospital when the son suggested that they go to his grandmother’s (the appellant’s mother’s) house “to see if she knew what had happened”. He said that neither of them was aware that the complainant was going to be there and seeing her there was completely coincidental. They arrived there at about 6:15pm, as the complainant was getting out of a car. They walked up the driveway towards her. The appellant spoke to his mother, who was also there, and to the complainant. The appellant and the complainant had an angry conversation and the complainant then punched the appellant in the face. The appellant grabbed her by the shoulders. The son then grabbed the appellant and pulled him backwards down the driveway. Both the appellant and complainant fell over, half on and half off the driveway. The son picked the appellant up, and sent him to the car. The son exchanged words with one of the women. The son and the appellant then left. He said that the appellant did not kick the complainant while she was on the ground nor use any other physical force against her. He said the complainant seemed very intoxicated because she was unsteady on her feet and slurring. They left and went to the Cairns police station.
The police officers
- [20]The investigating officer attended the scene shortly after 6:30pm and found the complainant lying in a recovery position. He saw red marks on her forehead. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital. He obtained the medical records from her admission to hospital, which were tendered.
- [21]He spoke with the appellant at the station and completed a domestic violence application naming the appellant as respondent. He said that the boots the appellant was wearing were similar to the boots that had been tendered.
- [22]Another police officer was at Cairns police station when the appellant arrived at about 6:55pm the same day. He spoke to the appellant and activated his body-worn camera. He asked the appellant why he was there and the appellant said: “I did the wrong thing. I went over there to confront her and did some things which I shouldn’t have.” The police officer asked “What do you mean: ‘I did some things’?”. “The appellant said “I wanted to talk to her and she walked away, so I grabbed her and spun her around and she slapped me across the face and just – I went “…, I need to talk to you” and she grabbed me. I was already holding onto her, and … we went straight arse over. So I did my thing, and I don’t know what (my son) did, but – yeah. I don’t know what happened with her and – (my son) and her because – but she was yelling and screaming and carrying on, you know.”
The appellant
- [23]The appellant gave evidence. His wife telephoned him in distress that afternoon and told him that she and her mother had been assaulted by the complainant. He told her he would meet her either at the police station or the hospital. He went home, and picked up his son, intending to drive to the hospital. His son suggested they stop at his mother’s house to see if she knew what had happened that afternoon. When they got there he saw the complainant getting out of his mother’s car. The complainant approached him and hit him “backhanded with her fist”[17]. He grabbed her by the shoulders to stop her assaulting him. The driveway was steep. As he did this, his son grabbed him by the shoulders and both he and the complainant fell over, partly on the grass and partly on the driveway. He said the complainant smelled of alcohol and was unsteady on her feet.
- [24]In cross-examination, he denied going to his mother’s house to confront the complainant. He said he did not have any idea she would be there. He denied punching or kicking the complainant. He denied telling police at the station that he “went there to confront her”. When the recording of the police body-worn camera was replayed to him, he accepted that he had, in fact, said that to police but he still denied that he had gone there to confront the complainant.
- [25]The defence tendered a photograph of the driveway and the appellant’s work boots.
The magistrate’s decision
- [26]The trial concluded on 7 August 2017. The magistrate reserved her decision, which was delivered on 22 August 2017. Her detailed reasons comprised 7 pages. She summarised the complainant’s evidence. She found that the complainant was intoxicated at the time of the events but not to the extent that she could not recall the events clearly. She noted the defence submission that the medical records indicated that the complainant was intoxicated and did not recollect events. She found that that evidence was hearsay and she placed no weight on it. She said that “In any event, there was no blood alcohol test taken and the fact that she was not able to recount the events soon after she had been assaulted and when she was still in hospital does not detract from her evidence in court.”[18]
- [27]The magistrate outlined the evidence of each of the eye witnesses. She quoted from key aspects of Ms Clark’s evidence, including that she was absolutely certain that the complainant had not punched the appellant and that the son had not pulled the appellant back, causing the complainant to fall over.[19]She also quoted from Ms Turnbull’s evidence.
- [28]The magistrate then outlined the evidence of the appellant’s son, the police officers, the body-worn camera footage and the evidence of the appellant.
- [29]The magistrate said that she did not accept the appellant’s evidence that he had not gone to his mother’s house to confront the complainant and that he had not known she was there. She found that “It is inherently unlikely that he would detour from his intended destination of the hospital to see his wife, who had allegedly been assaulted, to visit his mother’s house on the off-chance that she would have some knowledge of an assault that had occurred in her absence and of which he had no reason to believe she would be aware. He also gave no explanation of why he went directly to the police station when he was intending to go to the hospital to see his wife”.[20]
- [30]The magistrate also did not accept the appellant’s version of the incident, noting that his evidence in court was inconsistent with what he had told police that afternoon. She said “Further, his evidence in that regard is inconsistent with his statement to Constable Brown that he went over to his mother’s place to confront [the complainant] and he did some things he shouldn’t have. The defendant told Brown that he went up to [the complainant] and grabbed her and spun her around and she then slapped him and they both fell and that he didn’t know what was happening with [his son]. His evidence in court was that she walked up to him and backhanded him across the face. He said in court that he grabbed her after that. He said that [his son] then grabbed him and they fell over. His version in court is clearly inconsistent with what he told the police that afternoon. I do not accept the defendant’s evidence.”[21]
- [31]The magistrate did not accept the son’s evidence that it was his suggestion to visit his grandmother, finding it inherently unlikely for the same reasons she rejected the appellant’s evidence. She did not accept the son’s evidence that he could not hear what the complainant and the appellant had been saying, although he was only a few metres away from them and they were speaking angrily. She found that the son was untruthful.[22]
- [32]She found that Ms Turnbull, Ms Clark and Ms Brislan gave evidence that corroborated the complainant in all material particulars. She said they were honest in admitting what they could not recall, but most of the events, they said, they could recall clearly. She found that those witnesses gave their evidence truthfully and to the best of their knowledge and recollection.[23]
- [33]The magistrate found that the photographs of the complainant’s injuries also corroborated her evidence that she was punched in the face, thrown to the ground and kicked by the appellant. She did not accept that her bruising, in particular, her black eye, could have been caused by falling to the ground as described by the appellant and his son. She found the black eye consistent with having been punched, the bruising to the stomach consistent with having been kicked by the appellant while wearing boots and the bruising to the thigh consistent with either being thrown to the ground or being kicked.
- [34]Overall, the magistrate accepted the evidence of the complainant and the three eye witnesses and did not accept the evidence of the appellant and his son.
- [35]She made the following findings of fact.[24]The appellant went with his son to his mother’s house because he knew that the complainant was there and he wanted to confront her about her alleged assault of his wife and mother in law earlier that day. He got out of his car and walked or ran up the driveway to the complainant, who was standing near the car park. He punched her in the face at least once and then threw her to the ground. Whilst on the ground, he kicked her to the face and stomach. The injuries inflicted constitute bodily harm. She rejected the evidence of the appellant that the complainant punched him first and therefore did not need to consider whether he was acting in self defence when he assaulted her.
- [36]She concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offence as charged.
- [37]The magistrate sentenced the appellant on 28 August 2017. She took into account that he was 44 years old, a mature man, self-employed, with no criminal history. She accepted that the behaviour was out of character and occurred after a stressful period in which the appellant was caring for his ill father. She described the circumstances as “unusual, if not exceptional”, noting that “this assault occurred after you heard that the victim had assaulted your wife and mother-in-law that afternoon, although it is very serious offending. You punched and kicked your sister after – you punched her then kicked her after you had thrown her to the ground”. She said that “normally I would certainly find that a period of imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty. Given the very unusual circumstances in regard to the context of the assault, I do find that a fine is appropriate in this – in these circumstances.”[25]
Grounds of appeal
- [38]The appellant appeals on the basis that the magistrate erred in finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. He relied upon a number of grounds summarised as follows:
- the magistrate erred in finding that:
- (a)The appellant and his son had gone to the house knowing that the complainant was there;
- (b)The appellant and his son were untruthful witnesses;
- (c)That the medical records tendered were hearsay and therefore placed no weight on them;
- (d)That the complainant’s inability to recount events soon after she had been assaulted did not detract from her evidence; and
- the magistrate erred in making no findings in relation to:
- (a)the nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant in light of the fact that the appellant was alleged to have kicked the complainant and was wearing heavy work boots;
- (b)the possibility of the son’s hand connecting with the complainant’s face when the son pulled the appellant back and the complainant and appellant fell to the ground.
Submissions and discussion
- [39]The appellant submits that the evidence of the son ought to have been accepted because he gave credible evidence, he was the only witness not affected by alcohol, his version was diametrically opposed to the other prosecution witnesses and it was consistent with the appellant’s. This submission overlooks the fact that not one but three other eye witnesses corroborated the complainant’s version of events, as did the photographs, and that the appellant told police “I went over there to confront her”.
- [40]The appellant submitted that, even without the son’s evidence, the complainant’s evidence was inherently improbable because she downplayed her level of intoxication, whereas the medical records stated that she appeared intoxicated and had no recollection of the assault.
- [41]The appellant further submitted that the injuries suffered by the complainant were not consistent with her being kicked by the appellant wearing heavy work boots, but were consistent with a fall of some kind.
- [42]He concedes that his grabbing the complainant’s shoulder constituted an assault but submitted that it was not unlawful because he did so in self defence, and that her fall to the ground was an accident caused by the son pulling him back.
- [43]This is not a case that turned upon the complainant’s evidence alone. The complainant’s evidence was corroborated in important respects by three eye witnesses, and the evidence of her injuries contained in the medical records and the photographs. There was a real dispute between the evidence of those four prosecution witnesses, and the evidence of the son and the appellant.
- [44]The magistrate had the benefit of seeing and hearing each of the witnesses give evidence and formed an impression of their credibility. She found the three eye witnesses to be witnesses of honesty. Their versions differed in minor respects, which gave them an air of authenticity. Their evidence was not identical. They made reasonable concessions. The magistrate made her findings having regard to all the evidence as a whole, not just the complainant’s evidence.
- [45]Her findings were not ‘inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the evidence’ or ‘glaringly improbable’.
- [46]The appellant’s submission that there was no evidence upon which magistrate could have found that the appellant went to the house knowing the complainant was there, is not made out because:
- There is evidence that the appellant told police at the station that “I did the wrong thing. I went over there to confront her and did some things which I shouldn’t have”; and
- Ms Clark’s and Ms Turnbull’s evidence that when the appellant arrived he ran or walked quickly up the driveway straight to the complainant and was “on a mission”, is capable of supporting an inference that he went there with the intention of confronting complainant.
- [47]In any event, the finding that the appellant had gone to the mother’s house knowing that the complainant was there, was not direct evidence of an element of the offence and does not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm are that the appellant assaulted the complainant, the assault was unlawful and the appellant thereby did the complainant bodily harm. The magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each of those elements.
- [48]The appellant’s evidence at trial was self serving. It was almost identical to his son’s evidence, and it was inconsistent with what he said to the police at the station, which he initially denied. Their evidence was inconsistent with that of the complainant and the three eye witnesses.
- [49]It was open to the magistrate to find on the evidence that the appellant and his son were untruthful witnesses. It was open to infer that the son may have lied to protect his father.
- [50]In contrast, the three eye witnesses were not in a family relationship with the complainant. Ms Clark, who gave the most detailed and compelling evidence, was not a direct friend of the complainant but an older woman visiting from Victoria for a few days.[26]There is no evidence that she was affected by alcohol.
- [51]The magistrate had the benefit of seeing and hearing all the witnesses give evidence and be cross-examined and made findings about their credit. Those findings should not be disturbed lightly. In my view, the appellant has failed to establish that the magistrate erred in making those findings.
- [52]The appellant made formal admissions that the injuries suffered amounted to bodily harm but not that the appellant caused them. The medical records were tendered through the police officer without objection. The basis for the tender was not explicit but the appellant submits that the records were admissible in their entirety pursuant to s 93 of the Evidence Act 1977. The appellant sought to rely upon part of the records as evidence of the complainant’s level of intoxication and her lack of memory of the events. He submits that the magistrate erred in regarding them as hearsay and says they were evidence of the facts contained in them.
- [53]The part of the medical records that the magistrate regarded as hearsay and placed no weight on appears to be confined to the part stating that the complainant was intoxicated and that she did not recollect the events. I do not consider that finding an error. In any event, it did not, in my view, affect the outcome of the trial. The records corroborated the complainant’s injuries. The magistrate made a finding that the complainant was intoxicated in any event.
- [54]The magistrate’s finding that the complainant’s inability to recount events soon after she had been assaulted did not detract from her evidence, is not an error. It is not uncommon for a witness who has been assaulted to not recall details of the event immediately after it happened, but to be able to give some account of it later to police and in court.
- [55]The appellant submitted that if the complainant had been kicked by someone wearing the heavy boots in question, her injuries would have been significantly more serious. There was no medical evidence to that effect. The photographs showed injuries consistent with being kicked. That submission is not made out.
- [56]Finally, the submission that the magistrate erred in not finding that it was possible the son’s hand connected with the complainant’s face when he pulled the appellant back and that the complainant and appellant fell to the ground, is also not made out. There was no evidence that the son’s hand may have connected with the complainant’s face. There was overwhelming evidence that the appellant punched the complainant, threw her to the ground and then kicked her.
Conclusion
- [57]In those circumstances, the evidence supports the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On my review of the evidence, I so find. Accordingly, the magistrate’s finding to that effect was correct.
- [58]There is no basis upon which I might find that the magistrate made an error in her assessment of the evidence such as would justify interference by this court. In those circumstances, the appeal against conviction is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] Transcript 2 June 2017 p 1-8
[2] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [22] – [25]; Rowe v Kemper [2009] 1 Qd R 247 at [3] – [5]; Commissioner of Police v Al Shakarji [2013] QCA 319 at [7]; Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679 at [43], [57]; McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255 at [47].
[3] White v Commissioner of Police [2014] QCA 121, [5]-[8]
[4] Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 at [23]; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [16]; Walker v Davlyn Homes Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 565 at [9]; Shambayati v Commissioner of Police [2013] QCA 57 at [23]; White at [8]; McDonald at [47].
[5] Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; 479; approved in Fox v Percy ibid
[6] Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657, 687.
[7] Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454, 463-4, 466, 473, 477-9
[8] Transcript hearing 2 June 2017 1-19
[9] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-43
[10] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-47
[11] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-47
[12] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-49
[13] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-50
[14] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-49
[15] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-52
[16] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-55
[17] Transcript of hearing 7 August 2017 1-5
[18] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 3
[19] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 4
[20] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 6
[21] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 6
[22] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 7
[23] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 7
[24] Transcript of decision 22 August 2017 p 7
[25] Transcript of sentence 28 August 2017 p 2
[26] Transcript of hearing 2 June 2017 1-45