Bligh v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QDC 212
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
- Bligh v Commissioner of Police[2024] QDC 212
- Add to List
Bligh v Commissioner of Police[2024] QDC 212
Reported at (2024) 4 QDCR 142
Bligh v Commissioner of Police[2024] QDC 212
Reported at (2024) 4 QDCR 142
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Bligh v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 212 |
PARTIES: | BLIGH, Tremaine William Wayne (Appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No. 1217 of 2024 |
DIVISION: | Appellate |
PROCEEDING: | Section 222 Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Magistrates Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 7 August 2024 (ex tempore) |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane District Court |
HEARING DATE: | 7 August 2024 |
JUDGES: | Chief Judge Devereaux SC |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – appeal against sentence – where the appellant was charged with 37 offences – whether the required procedure for a bulk arraignment was followed |
LEGISLATION: | Justices Act 1886 (Qld) |
CASES: | Selvaraja v Queensland Police Service [2022] QDC 94 |
COUNSEL: | R Gough for the appellant. M Hickey for the respondent. |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent. |
- [1]The appellant was sentenced on 9 April 2024 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court in respect of 37 offences. Relevant background is that he had been sentenced on 25 March 2024 to a term of three years’ imprisonment with a parole release date set on 9 April 2024. That, as I just said, was the date of his sentencing in the Magistrates Court, the subject of this appeal. The District Court judge who sentenced on 25 March 2024 declared that 435 days of pre-sentence custody were taken into account.
- [2]The first point taken on appeal is whether the learned Magistrate, who purported to act under section 145 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) in taking what was described as a bulk plea to the 37 offences, failed to follow the required procedure.
- [3]There was, in effect, no plea taken from the appellant. The legal representative of the appellant told the learned Magistrate that he held instructions for a bulk arraignment. In answer to her Honour’s remark, “So enter a plea to those charges, not requiring them to be read. Good.”, the legal representative said, “No, your Honour. It’s simply the first charge and the follow-through, and bulk arraignment process. I hold those instructions.” The learned Magistrate then said, “All right. Pleas entered voluntarily.” And the proceeding continued.
- [4]The submission is made that the appellant was not arraigned and did not enter pleas of guilty.
- [5]There is no contest on the appeal about that. The concession is made properly. The only contest was as to what the consequence of that finding should be. I agree with the submission made by the appellant, that the consequence must be that, there having been no proper plea entered, the appeal against the conviction must succeed, the convictions be set aside and the matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for further proceedings to be conducted according to law.
- [6]I respectfully agree with and repeat the remarks of Judge Loury KC in Selvaraja v Queensland Police Service [2022] QDC 94 at [13]:
Section 145 was amended in 2017 to include subsections (2) and (3) which provide for a procedure which can be used if a defendant is legally represented; has obtained legal advice in relation to each of the complaints; is aware of the substance of each of the complaints; and consents to pleading in bulk to any number of complaints. Whilst the court is not required to state the substance of any complaint to the defendant the procedure which is required to be undertaken is designed to eliminate the risk of any misunderstanding on the part of the defendant as to the number and nature of the charges. The procedure still requires the defendant to be asked how he/she pleads and does not provide for the plea to be entered by his/her legal representative.
- [7]There appellant raises other arguments asserting errors made by the learned Magistrate. It is unnecessary for me to address them. It was a complicated sentencing because of the numerous charges and the appellant’s currently being under sentence by the District Court.
- [8]The submission is made, and I respectfully think, on balance, it is a good one, that the proceeding should be heard by a different magistrate. So those are the orders. Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. Proceeding sent back to the Magistrates Court for proceeding according to law, to be heard by a different magistrate.