Sorensen v Queensland Police Service
[2022] QDC 121
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
- Sorensen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QDC 121
- Add to List
Sorensen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QDC 121
Sorensen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QDC 121
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE SMITH
No 150 of 2021
ANDREW GLEN SORENSEN Appellant
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE Respondent
CAIRNS
11.01 AM, THURSDAY, 19 MAY 2022
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The appellant, appeals his convictions in two charges on the Cairns Magistrates Court on 1 November 2021, He was convicted of one charge of using a mobile phone, contrary to road rule 300, sub-rule (1) of the TORUM Road Rules 2009 and one charge of driving without a licence, demerit points, contrary to section 78 of the TORUM Act.
On charge, 1 he was convicted and fined $1250, referred to SPER, and on charge 2, convicted and fined $450 and disqualified for six months.
I have had regard, of course, to the submissions he has made and the submissions filed. The notice of appeal he has filed is largely unintelligible but he did allege that evidence was tampered with and he has new evidence. In his written submissions, Mr Sorensen alleges the Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. He was not allowed to present his case and he was unlawfully arrested. He also alleges the Constitution of Queensland is invalid.
The respondent, on the other hand, submits the evidence established the elements of the offence and the convictions are valid.
In order to consider this appeal, it is necessary for me to review the evidence. The Magistrate, at page 5, was at pains to explain the procedure to Mr Sorensen. He explained the rule in Browne v Dunn and the right to object to evidence. He did explain to the appellant that he could choose whether or not to call or give evidence and explained the consequences of such decision. He explained the good character rule and the charges to the appellant.
Exhibit 1 was a Transport Integrated Customer Access documents which proved that a notice to choose had been sent to him. Exhibit 2 was a certificate that, as at 5 July 2021, his licensed had been suspended as a result of the accumulation of demerit points between 14 April 2021 and 13 July 2021. There was also a suspension under the SPER Act between 13 March 2021 and 14 July 2021.
Senior Constable Vokes gave evidence that on 5 July 2021 he was in a marked police vehicle with Constable Brett Clarke on Anderson Road, Cairns, at about 7.45 am. He said he saw the appellant with a mobile phone in his hand at his ear and the vehicle was intercepted. He activated body camera footage and recorded the interactions. The appellant was told why he was intercepted and he was arrested. Checks were conducted and it was discovered his licence had been suspended. Photos of the phone were taken, exhibit 3, and the footage was tendered as exhibit 4.
In cross-examination, he confirmed he saw the appellant driving in the opposite direction. It was put to him that his observation was impeded because of a dirty window, although he denied that. He said he could clearly see the appellant. He confirmed he saw the phone to the appellant’s ear and confirmed the appellant was the driver and confirmed the appellant was arrested under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and he had the power to make the arrest. I do note there was a dispute about that and the appellant alleged the arrest was unlawful but that really did not come into focus much because a charge of obstructing police had been discontinued. He denied he simply assumed the appellant was on the mobile phone.
Constable Brett Clarke also gave evidence that he was Vokes’ partner on 5 July 2021. He also alleged he saw the appellant using the mobile phone. They did a U-turn and intercepted the appellant’s vehicle and the appellant was placed under arrest.
In cross-examination he said that he considered the phone was blue, although there was some dispute about the colour and the photos do tend to show it was a greeny colour. He confirmed he saw the appellant on the phone. He clearly saw him on the phone, he said. He did not simply make an assumption. The arrest was for obstructing police and he did accept that dirt on the windscreen might have impeded the vision.
After the prosecution case was complete, the appellant submitted the charges be struck out as he had already been punished by the SPER debt and suspension, and that section 16 of the Criminal Code applied. This submission was, in my view, correctly rejected by the Magistrate as the act, the subject charge 2 was a different act to the ones relied on by the Appellant.
The appellant chose not to give or call evidence. The prosecution submitted the police gave truthful evidence and the charges were proved. The appellant was using the phone whilst driving and there was no issue he was subject to a SPER suspension and the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant submitted he was not guilty, as the police were mistaken. He pointed to the difference in phone colour, which I have already mentioned. He said there were no admissions made by him. He submitted the police acted illegally. He said double jeopardy applied to charge 2, which I have already mentioned. He said he was a citizen and had been discriminated against.
The Magistrate, in his decision, referred to each of the charges, noting the onus of proof was on the prosecution and the standard of proof was proof beyond reasonable doubt. He summarised the evidence. He considered the police evidence consistent and accurate. He referred to the final submissions and, at the end of the day, the Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the elements had been proved and he convicted the appellant.
The appellant has tendered some medical records today which I have had the chance to consider. Those records are, to my mind, do not affect the challenge to the convictions in this case. However, they are certainly matters of mitigation and I would advise the appellant with respect to the Mareeba proceedings, to use those records when appearing in that Court as they would be very relevant to what happens in that jurisdiction. It is no doubt of concern, his father’s state and his son’s state.
As to the arguments raised by the appellant concerning the Court’s jurisdiction, a Magistrates Court clearly had jurisdiction to hear these charges. See section 19 and 22A of the Justices Act 1886 and section 123V of the TORUM Act. As to his arguments concerning the invalidity of the Constitution and his rights as a sovereign citizen, they provide no defence to the charge. See Brady v R [2020] QCA 252 and R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216.
Having reviewed the evidence and giving due weight to the Magistrate’s credibility findings, I find, on the evidence, each element of each charge was established beyond reasonable doubt. I find the decision is not attenuated by either factual or legal error and I dismiss the appeal. Anything else at this stage?
MR HANCOCK: No, thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Sorensen, for your assistance. Thank you, Mr Hancock. I will adjourn the Court.
______________________