Queensland Police Service v Rowley
[2025] QMC 18
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
- Queensland Police Service v Rowley[2025] QMC 18
- Add to List
Queensland Police Service v Rowley[2025] QMC 18
Queensland Police Service v Rowley[2025] QMC 18
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Queensland Police Service v Rowley [2025] QMC 18 |
PARTIES: | QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Complainant) V GRAHAM MILTON ROWLEY (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | MAG-00125959/23(7) |
DIVISION: | Magistrates Courts |
PROCEEDING: | Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 – Disobeying the Speed Limit Application to Reopen |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Gympie |
DELIVERED ON: | 18 June 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Gympie |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
MAGISTRATE: | Magistrate Hughes |
ORDER: | The Application to Reopen is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES – GENERALLY – where application to reopen – where applicant convicted and fined $287 for disobeying speed limit by 7 kilometres per hour – where convicted and sentenced after full-day summary trail – where proceeding will not be reopened simply to allow party to re-argue their case on existing or additional evidence – where applicant embraced opportunity to ventilate issues at original hearing – where purpose of reopening a summary criminal proceeding is merely to correct an error or omission apparent from the terms of the earlier order or because of deceit – where bare allegation of deceit does not meet threshold - where allowing more court time for groundless application to reopen contrary to efficient administration of justice and public interest in expeditious resolution of proceedings – where disagreement with original findings on evidence is not ground to reopen Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 20 Achurch v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 141 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 R v Tommekand [1996] 1 QdR 564 |
SOLICITORS: | C Massingham, Senior Legal Officer for the Complainant Respondent in person |
What is this Application about?
- [1]Graham Rowley was convicted and fined $287 for disobeying the speed limit by 7 kilometres per hour on 19 March 2023.[1] Following his conviction and sentence, Mr Rowley applied to reopen the proceeding. This was after a full-day summary trial where he cross-examined police witnesses, gave full evidence and made extensive submissions.
What is the background to this Application to Reopen?
- [2]Months before the hearing, Mr Rowley had initially sought to have the matter transferred to Brisbane. That was unsuccessful.
- [3]The hearing was then delayed to allow Mr Rowley to submit a Right to Information application to the Information Commissioner. After the Commissioner decided not to release documents, Mr Rowley requested a further adjournment to apply for a review of the decision. The Court granted Mr Rowley’s request to allow him to properly prepare his defence.
Does this Application provide any ground to reopen the proceeding?
- [1]
- [2]The High Court has noted that the resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings.[4] Finality in proceedings is highly desirable, because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[5]
- [3]In the busy and high-volume Magistrates Court jurisdiction, thousands of applications and complaints are heard and determined each year. To facilitate an expeditious resolution of the application to reopen, the parties were therefore directed to file their evidence by affidavit.[6] Despite this, Mr Rowley said he does not consent to this matter being decided on the papers.[7]
- [4]The Court may hear the application by affidavit evidence.[8] Mr Rowley’s affidavit evidence and other filed material do not provide any grounds for reopening. Mr Rowley fully embraced the opportunity to ventilate these issues at the original hearing. Mr Rowley was given considerable latitude both before and during the hearing – despite objections from the Prosecution.
- [5]Mr Rowley did not articulate grounds to reopen. Instead, he filed documents rearguing findings of fact and alleging deceit or misleading conduct by the Prosecution and one of its witnesses.
- [6]An application to reopen is not a rehearing on the merits. The purpose of reopening a summary criminal proceeding is merely to correct an error or omission apparent from the terms of the earlier order or because of deceit.[9] It is not an opportunity to reventilate issues already canvassed at a hearing and for which findings were made. Nor is it an opportunity to ‘second-guess’ those findings. Findings were made based on the evidence. No adverse findings of credit were made. There is no evidence of any intent to mislead. The trial was properly conducted.
- [7]It is not a reopening ground to accept the evidence of a Prosecution witness. It is not a reopening ground to accept the submissions of the Prosecution. Deceit is a serious allegation requiring commensurate proof.[10] Here, it is a bare allegation. That does not meet the high threshold.
- [8]Mr Rowley had the opportunity to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses and to adduce evidence at the hearing and did so. He made oral submissions at length. Allowing him more court time for a groundless application to reopen takes away valuable court time from other more worthy applications. That would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of proceedings.
- [9]Mr Rowley’s disagreement with the original findings on the evidence is not a ground to reopen the proceeding.
- [10]Mr Rowley has been given a fair go. His application to reopen is dismissed.
Footnotes
[1] Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 20.
[2] Affidavit of Graham Milton Rowley affirmed 17 October 2024; Objections filed by Graham Rowley on 3 December 2024; Grounds to Reopen filed by Graham Rowley on 14 March 2025; Issues To Be Determined filed by Graham Rowley on 5 March 2025.
[3] R v Tommekand [1996] 1 QdR 564, 567.
[4] Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A(4).
[7] Issues To Be Determined filed by Graham Rowley on 5 March 2025.
[8] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A.
[9] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A; Achurch v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 141, [47].
[10] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.