Gauld v Queensland Police Service
[2025] QMC 6
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
- Gauld v Queensland Police Service[2025] QMC 6
- Add to List
Gauld v Queensland Police Service[2025] QMC 6
Gauld v Queensland Police Service[2025] QMC 6
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Gauld v Queensland Police Service [2025] QMC 6 |
PARTIES: | ANGELA GAY GAULD (Applicant) V QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | MAG-00118322/24(0) |
DIVISION: | Magistrates Courts |
PROCEEDING: | Application for costs |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Gympie |
DELIVERED ON: | 11 March 2025 |
DELIVERED AT: | Gympie |
HEARING DATE: | On the Papers |
MAGISTRATE: | Magistrate Hughes |
ORDER: | The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceeding in the amount of $1840.00 within 30 days. |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – COSTS – POWER TO AWARD – whether it is proper for costs order – where investigation not conducted in appropriate way – where investigative deficiencies – where applicant told to get in police car without being charged or under arrest – where arresting officer did not comply with statutory obligations and internal procedures for breath testing and analysis – where applicant as a woman is identified by law as particularly vulnerable to domestic violence – where police did not properly consider indicia of domestic violence – where applicant charged with fail to supply specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement – where applicant also charged with drive under the influence of liquor or a drug – where applicant restrained and detained – where defence notified prosecution of investigative deficiencies at early stage – where police offered no evidence to first charge but continued with second charge – where police later offered no evidence to second charge – where both charges dismissed – where applicant prejudiced due to prolonged period of licence suspension while investigated and prosecuted – where applicant funded by legal aid Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 25 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 4 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158, s 158A, s 158B Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), Schedule 2, Part 2 Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 30, s 31, s 32 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 79, s 80 Allison v Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 111 Bell v Carter; Ex parte Bell [1992] QCA 245 Davies v Dorfler [1988] 2 QdR 490 Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534 Lewis v Utting, ex parte Utting (1985) 1 QdR 423 MacPherson v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] QCA 396 Madden v Commissioner of Police [2023] QCA 31 Madden v Commissioner of Police (No. 2) [2023] QCA 182 Maher v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 45 Power v Lewis [2007] QDC 188 SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57 Wells v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 120 |
SOLICITORS: | Nightingale Law for the Applicant Sergeant M Campbell for the Respondent |
What is this Application about?
- [1]
What is the background to the charges being dismissed?[3]
- [2]Ms Gauld was already distraught when police arrived at the Tin Can Bay wharf on the night of 15 July 2024. She had been in a car accident earlier that evening. She was on her partner’s boat pleading for his help. She was wet and her pants were torn.
- [3]Things were about to get worse.
- [4]Two male police officers boarded the vessel and questioned her about the accident. Ms Gauld admitted she had been driving. She said she had been drinking but had drunk two beers since the accident. She explained she was wet because she fell off the boat. Police then told her to come with them to the police car. As arrangements were made for a life jacket for Ms Gauld, she told police she had drunk some more (alcohol).
- [5]The officers then accompanied Ms Gauld off the vessel onto the jetty towards their police car. She was able to climb unassisted from the boat up the ladder onto the jetty. She continued to walk unassisted in a straight line up the jetty to the police car.
- [6]On the way, Ms Gauld asked for a blanket. She was concerned her pants were torn and her buttocks exposed. One of the officers told Ms Gauld something would be found for her. He then told Ms Gauld to follow the other officer up to the rear of the police car, while again assuring her he would go and organise a blanket. That never happened.
- [7]When Ms Gauld arrived at the rear of the police car, the other officer was waiting with the doors to the holding area open. She was told they were taking her to the police station. The officers did not require Ms Gauld to give a roadside breath test.[4] They did not advise her she was being detained or under arrest. Ms Gauld had not been charged with any offence at this stage.
- [8]Ms Gauld said she was not going in the police car. The officers continued:
“But you don’t have any choice, okay.”
“You’ve got one choice to get in voluntarily, or we’re going to put you in.”
“Mate, just jump in.”
“So, you gotta hop up in – it’s only a short trip to the police station.”
- [9]Ms Gauld told the officers she was cold and wanted a blanket and her phone. The officers assured her they would get these for her. They never did.
- [10]As police closed the doors to the vehicle, Ms Gauld can be heard sobbing from inside. One of the officers then returned to the vessel to question Ms Gauld’s partner, who said that Ms Gauld “had only had about one or two” (drinks) all day. This included “half a beer” in the last half hour. He also gave his version of the day’s events. His version included issues between him and Ms Gauld and that she had jumped into the water to get onto his boat.
- [11]That officer then made his way back to the police car. On his way, he had a telephone conversation with a more senior officer who was back at the Tin Can Bay police station. During the conversation, the officer reported to the senior officer that they were potentially investigating a traffic crash, domestic violence, possible mental health issues relating to Ms Gauld “as well as a possible drink drive”. By this stage, Ms Gauld had been kept in the holding area of the police car for some ten minutes.
- [12]Both officers at the scene then walked around the immediate area to make further enquiries. During this time, the officers left Ms Gauld left alone in the holding area of the police car until they returned some three minutes later.
- [13]The officers then drove Ms Gauld to the police station. As they drove off, Ms Gauld repeated she was cold and her request for a blanket. One of the officers again assured her “we’re going to get one”.
- [14]As they continued to the station, Ms Gauld repeated she was cold and again asked about her phone. The officers apologised for not getting it and added they could go back and get it. Ms Gauld said she wanted the officers to get the phone so they could “see the evidence.”
- [15]The officers then had a conversation in the front of the police car. They noted that Ms Gauld claimed her partner had been doing “things to her.” One of the officers then said to “put her on the bag and we’ll take it from there”. They also decided to question Ms Gauld about the phone to “find out what’s on it”. Contrary to holistic principles for the investigation of domestic violence,[5] one officer then said to the other:
“I understand if we need the phone we can go get it. But at the moment, he’s calm; she’s not.”
- [16]Upon arriving, Ms Gauld walked unassisted into the police station. Her gait was normal. Once inside the police station, it is apparent that Ms Gauld was in bare feet. She was visibly crying and showing signs of distress. She again told police she was cold and wanted her phone. She asked police to get her phone before her partner did and “delete(s) everything”. She told police she was scared.
- [17]While Ms Gauld was seated inside the police station, one of the officers questioned her. It included the following exchange:
OFFICER 1: Now what’s… what’s on your phone that we need to get it in such a hurry for?
MS GAULD: I just want my phone back.
OFFICER 1: You just want your phone back? Well, we can organise to get your phone back. Okay?
MS GAULD: Okay. Well, her name is [name removed] something.
OFFICER 1: Sorry, the woman?
MS GAULD: She’s got a DVO out on him.
OFFICER 1: Okay.
MS GAULD: You know. Just look up [name removed]. You were there last time.
OFFICER 1: What made you jump in the water tonight?
MS GAULD: I didn’t jump in the water.
OFFICER 1: So how did you get wet?
MS GAULD: Because I couldn’t get up the ladder from his boat. He pushed it away.
OFFICER 1: Okay. Okay.
MS GAULD: Do you think I just jumped in the water?
OFFICER 1: No, No I… that’s what I’m asking for.
MS GAULD: No, I -
[Officer 2 places towel around Ms Gauld’s shoulders]
OFFICER 2: We don’t have a blanket; we do have a towel.
MS GAULD: Oh thank you, I’ll put it over here. I’m cold as.
[Ms Gauld places towel on her lap to cover her legs while seated].
OFFICER 1: Yeah, yeah.
MS GAULD: My feet are freezing.
OFFICER 1: Yeah. This heat is from – it’s hot -
MS GAULD: I didn’t jump in the water.
OFFICER 1: It’s hot. I’m gonna have to take this jacket off. It’s pretty hot.
MS GAULD: I didn’t jump in the water. You know, trying to get on the boat -
OFFICER 1: Yeah.
MS GAULD: Is one thing.
OFFICER 1: It’s okay. It’s okay. Alright. So, you’ve been involved in a car crash tonight, okay?
MS GAULD: Yeah I know.
OFFICER 1: Yeah, so we’re gonna give you a random breath test.
MS GAULD: No you’re not.
OFFICER 1: Oh yes I am.
MS GAULD: No you’re not.
OFFICER 1: If you refuse, you’ll be charged as if you’ve been drinking under the influence, okay?
MS GAULD: Well I did. I was drinking with –
OFFICER 1: Or fail to supply -
MS GAULD: with him -
OFFICER 1: Okay.
MS GAULD: And that’s why he ran scared.
OFFICER 1: Okay. Alright. So -
MS GAULD: No -
OFFICER 1: If you fail to supply -
MS GAULD: I can’t afford to lose my licence.
OFFICER 1: Okay.
MS GAULD: I can’t afford to. I… I’ve already got seizures in my brain. I can’t do that. I’m trying to get out of here. He promised me, because he’s a carpenter, to look after me.
OFFICER 1: Yep.
MS GAULD: I’m stuck here in Cooloola fucking Cove and Tin…pot Bay. Sorry, but that’s how I feel.
OFFICER 1: Angela -
MS GAULD: No, you’re not -
OFFICER 1: Angela –
MS GAULD: No.
OFFICER 1: Just require you to provide a specimen of breath for the purpose of a random breath test. I require you to breathe out in one continuous breath through this tube until I tell you to stop. Do you understand that?
MS GAULD: Yep.
OFFICER 1: Right. Breathe out through the tube until I tell you to stop.
MS GAULD: No. I don’t want to do this because I know I’ve drunk too much.
OFFICER 1: Angela -
MS GAULD: I did that -
OFFICER 1: Yep.
MS GAULD: Because he -
OFFICER 1: Yep. Yep. I can’t tell you what’s gonna happen but it won’t be good. Okay? So, either you supply or you don’t. It’s your choice.
MS GAULD: So what’s going to happen to… okay… yes…
OFFICER 1: I’m not going to tell you. But you blow out. I’ll hold this.
MS GAULD: No, just -
OFFICER 1: You blow -
MS GAULD: You… you be kind to me -
OFFICER 1: I am being kind to you.
MS GAULD: For a second. No, honestly.
OFFICER 1: I am being honest with you.
MS GAULD: What’s going to happen to me if this happens?
OFFICER 1: I don’t know yet. That’s why we’re asking you to provide a specimen of breath for the purposes of a random breath test. You’ve been involved in a car crash. It’s part of the procedure of what we’ve gotta go through, okay?
MS GAULD: Okay.
OFFICER 1: So breathe out -
MS GAULD: Okay.
OFFICER 1: In one continuous breath through the tube -
MS GAULD: Am I gonna go home to be with -
OFFICER 1: As directed.
MS GAULD: My Boxer boys soon?
OFFICER 1: Yep.
MS GAULD: They’re my babies.
OFFICER 1: Yep. So in one continuous… deep continuous breath, blow out through the tube until I ask you to stop please.
MS GAULD: Okay… wait... I will... just wait… I’m trying to digest what’s going on here.
OFFICER 1: Yep.
MS GAULD: You don’t understand the whole situation.
OFFICER 1: Well, we’re starting at the beginning.
MS GAULD: See, this is the thing. No-one understands the whole situation.
OFFICER 1: Yep. Alright. So breathe out through the tube in one continuous breath until I ask you to stop.
MS GAULD: Just wait.
OFFICER 1: Stop pushing it away, Your refusal -
MS GAULD: Just wait for a second -
OFFICER 1: Is being noticed.
MS GAULD: Just wait for a second. Just sit down -
OFFICER 1: [Indistinct] your refusal -
MS GAULD: And listen.
OFFICER 1: I will listen to you –
[Officer 3 stands up from behind partition where he had been seated and points at Ms Gauld]
OFFICER 3: Hey!
OFFICER 1: - when you provide a specimen of breath.
OFFICER 3: Stop raising your voice in my station. Enough’s enough.
[Ms Gauld bows her head sobbing]
OFFICER 3: Listen to what the constable’s got to say -
MS GAULD: I have.
OFFICER 3: And stop [indistinct] -
MS GAULD: Just let me [indistinct] -
OFFICER 3: Hey!
MS GAULD: I’m a woman.
OFFICER 3: I am not going to tell you again. Stop raising your voice in my station.
[Officer 3 walks toward Ms Gauld]
MS GAULD: Okay. Well then, fuck you all.
[Ms Gauld gets up to leave. An officer grabs her forearm and tries to position her back on her chair]
OFFICER 3: Right. Sitting up and doing what you’re bloody well told. Enough’s enough.
[An officer continues to hold Ms Gauld’s forearm as she loses balance and falls to the floor from the chair onto her back with her face up. Officer 3 stands near her]
OFFICER 3: You’ve been given more than enough chances. They’ve been treating you extremely fair and you’re being belligerent. Now either get in the seat, sit down, answer his questions or shut your mouth. End of story. No more.
MS GAULD: I’m not a criminal.
OFFICER 3: This man has been extremely -
MS GAULD: I’m not a criminal.
OFFICER 3: - this man has been extremely kind to you.
MS GAULD: Get off me.
OFFICER 1: Don’t move.
MS GAULD: Don’t restrain me.
[Ms Gauld gets up and tries to walk away]
MS GAULD: Stop restraining me.
- [18]Ms Gauld was then restrained and detained.
What is the legislative scheme to award costs?
- [19]The Court is empowered, upon dismissal of a complaint, to order the complainant to pay the defendant just and reasonable costs.[6] However, if the complainant is a police officer, the Court must be satisfied it is proper to make the costs order.[7] In determining whether it is proper, the Court must go beyond statutory examples focusing on specific conduct of the prosecution and defence[8] and consider “all relevant circumstances”.[9] This requires balancing competing considerations.[10]
- [20]
- [21]
Can the Court order costs after an earlier ordering dismissing the charges?
- [22]It is settled law that the Court can separately determine costs following an earlier order dismissing the charges.[17] Apart from convenience and efficiency,[18] procedural fairness is well served by not requiring concomitant costs orders at the time of dismissal.[19] Because of this, following dismissal of the charges I directed the parties to file written submissions addressing the costs application.
What are the relevant circumstances to award costs?
- [23]The Queensland Police Service included in its submission:
The original actions of the detaining Police are again a matter for a Magistrate to determine taking into account the unique situation that Police found themselves in at the time of detention of the defendant being that it was at night, there had been a traffic crash, the female defendant was soaking wet, and it was the middle of winter which meant that her safety was paramount.[20]
- [24]Because Ms Gauld is a woman, the law identifies her as particularly vulnerable to domestic violence.[21] When police arrived at the scene, Ms Gauld was cold, wet and highly distressed. She was on her partner’s boat pleading for support. Her pants were torn. She had fallen into the water. She gave an explanation that could have been referable to being a victim of - or attempting to escape from - domestic violence.
- [25]Ms Gauld continued to request her phone, suggesting to police it contained relevant evidence. Yet police dismissed her request based on an outdated and debunked assessment from their perception of her emotional state[22] when compared with her male partner:
“I understand if we need the phone we can go get it. But at the moment, he’s calm; she’s not.”[23]
- [26]The dismissive attitude towards Ms Gauld’s request for her phone and her suggestions of domestic violence continued at the police station. Her concerns were neither acknowledged nor addressed. She had been in an accident. Apart from being given a towel, her requests for a blanket and her phone were ignored. She was then berated, before being arrested and charged.
- [27]Police failed to properly consider indicia of domestic violence towards Ms Gauld when at the scene, when taking her to the police station and when questioning her at the police station. Ms Gauld specifically asked police to get her phone to “see the evidence”. She exhorted them to. Yet they did not. That was a failure to take steps to investigate matters coming to, or within, the knowledge of a person responsible for bringing or continuing the proceeding.[24] The investigation was flawed from the start. By not properly regarding Ms Gauld’s legitimate interests as a potential victim of domestic violence, the investigation failed to ‘meet the moment’.
- [28]An investigation should also be brought according to established standards or rules.[25] The legislation and relevant police manual distinguish a ‘breath test’ conducted on a ‘breath testing device’ from a ‘specimen of breath for analysis’ on a ‘breath analysing instrument’.[26] Police did not give Ms Gauld a requirement for a roadside breath test before taking her to the police station.[27] They did not inform her she was arrested or detained for any purpose before taking her to the station. At no stage did police give Ms Gauld a requirement to provide a specimen of breath of analysis on a ‘breath analysing instrument’. The proceeding for the charge of ‘Fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement’ was brought following an investigation where police did not follow proper process. Because of this, I do not consider police conducted the investigation of this charge in an appropriate way.[28]
- [29]To start a proceeding, an investigating officer must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that a defendant committed the offence.[29] This requires an evaluative merit assessment of a defendant being found guilty of the offence.[30] The charge of ‘Drive under the influence of liquor or a drug’ required the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Gauld was “under the influence” at the time of driving. The Court Brief prepared by police refers to Ms Gauld as “heavily slurring her words” and “quite unsteady on her feet and was swaying left to right while climbing the ladder off the boat back onto the jetty”.[31] Yet the police bodycam footage does not feature any of these.[32]
- [30]Police did not attend upon Ms Gauld until some 30 minutes after the accident. By this stage, Ms Gauld was with her partner on his boat. She is seated and speaking coherently. The bodycam footage shows evidence of some post-driving alcohol consumption ranging from half a can of beer to two cans of beer before police arrive.[33] It also suggests Ms Gauld may have consumed more alcohol while police attended.[34] This creates doubt about when Ms Gauld was under the influence, if at all.[35] It erodes reasonable grounds to start a proceeding for the offence of ‘Drive under the influence of liquor or a drug’.
- [31]Given the indicia of domestic violence, police should have also been alive to Ms Gauld having a possible defence of emergency to the charge.[36] This was another failure to take steps to investigate matters coming to, or within, the knowledge of a person responsible for bringing or continuing the proceeding.[37]
- [32]
- [33]The defence raised these deficiencies with police at an early stage following a delay by police in disclosing the officer’s bodycam footage.[40] Despite this, police continued with the charge for a further two months before offering no evidence on 16 January 2025. All the while, Ms Gauld was without her licence.
- [34]Because she lives in a regional town, it can readily be inferred that Ms Gauld has suffered substantial inconvenience without her licence. I take judicial notice Ms Gauld would feel the loss of her licence more acutely in a regional area where access to amenities, emergency services and public transport is limited.
- [35]Given the investigative deficiencies[41] and their detrimental impact on Ms Gauld,[42] I do not consider the investigation was conducted in an appropriate way. The defence’s early notice to the prosecution of the investigative deficiencies is a relevant factor favouring an award of costs.[43] The suspension of Ms Gauld’s licence in a regional community would have caused her real prejudice.[44]
- [36]However, I do not consider the evidence meets the high threshold to support a finding that the investigation was lacking in good faith.[45] As is often the case, officers were called to a scene unfolding in real time. Mistakes can be made. Unfortunately, however, a holistic assessment shows that the investigation was not attuned to the circumstances. It was not conducted in an appropriate way.
Is it proper to award the Applicant her costs?
- [37]A Court may award just and reasonable costs only if satisfied it is proper.[46] The public policy objective is to ensure that a prosecuting authority is not deterred from its duty to properly bring charges.[47] Because the duty is to properly bring charges, the broader conduct of each party leading up to a hearing are “relevant circumstances”[48] in determining whether it is proper to award costs.
- [38]The features of this prosecution favouring an award of costs do not undermine the policy objective. From the start, the police investigation failed to properly consider Ms Gauld’s vulnerability as a potential victim of domestic violence. The investigation was deficient in legal process. These deficiencies were readily apparent and identifiable at an early stage.[49] The defence put the prosecution on notice.[50] Police offered no evidence to one charge but continued the prosecution for the remaining charge. Later, police offered no evidence to the remaining charge. Ms Gauld was without her licence the whole time.
- [39]Despite this, the Queensland Police Service resisted a costs award. It submitted it conducted case conferencing in good faith.[51] The Prosecution contends the time taken here was not inordinate because the seriousness of the charge of ‘Drive under the Influence of Liquor or Drugs’ required the need to properly scrutinise the full Brief of Evidence.[52]
- [40]I do not consider Police Prosecutions conducted the prosecution other than in good faith. The purpose of case conferencing is to facilitate an early resolution to proceedings.[53] That is to be encouraged. I accept it is not unusual for case conferencing to continue until hearing.[54] Police Prosecutions state that the Brief of Evidence was checked by the Officer-in-Charge of Tin Can Bay Police Station and it relied on his opinion in determining the evidence was insufficient to continue the charge.[55] Certainly, police did not supply the Brief of Evidence to the defence by 10 January 2025 as directed.[56] Although not to be condoned or encouraged, I accept that delays in the Brief of Evidence reflect a very busy police station.[57]
- [41]But the investigation was deficient from the start. A viewing of the bodycam footage[58] was sufficient to crystallise the investigative deficiencies. That footage did not support the indicia of intoxication reported in the police court brief. And the Defendant’s voluntary breath specimen taken as part of her health checks could not be used as evidence in any court proceeding[59] – in any event. None of this required a full Brief of Evidence. Persisting with an inherently deficient proceeding unnecessarily exposed Ms Gauld to expense, delay and inconvenience until police offered no evidence.[60]
- [42]No conduct by the defendant was sufficient to disentitle her from an award of costs.[61] Although Ms Gauld used intemperate language at the police station, she could not be expected to respond calmly and assuredly to police requests – she was a distressed woman without support in a fraught situation.[62] She told police about the phone and its potential evidential value. She did what she could in the moment. The conduct of the defence is otherwise without criticism.[63]
- [43]It is therefore proper to award Ms Gauld her costs.
What costs are just and reasonable costs to award the Applicant?
- [44]
- [45]Ms Gauld was a frightened woman who may have been a victim of domestic violence. Viewed objectively, the arbitrary discounting of Ms Gauld’s side of the story and indicia of domestic violence from the start, the dismissive and at times peremptory treatment she endured at the police station, the failure by police to follow proper process, the early notice by the defence of the investigative deficiencies and the manifest injustice Ms Gauld suffered from the loss of her licence elevate her case above the ordinary criminal case.
- [46]Ms Gauld’s costs fixed on a scale basis would be a maximum of $1750.00.[66] Her actual costs were $1840.00.[67] The costs claimed are an appropriate reflection of the special importance of the case.[68] It makes no difference that Ms Gauld’s defence was funded by Legal Aid Queensland.[69] Costs orders may be made for and against a defendant who is funded by legal aid, who in turn can pay or be reimbursed those costs.[70] Given her ordeal and its impact, it is to be expected Ms Gauld would have engaged lawyers to act in her interests.[71]
- [47]Public policy considerations of investigative fairness towards vulnerable women in a domestic violence setting elevate Ms Gauld’s case above an ordinary criminal case. Ms Gauld is awarded her just and reasonable costs of $1840.00.
Footnotes
[1] Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80(11) – Fail to provide specimen of breath for analysis or blood test on requirement (Charge 1); Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 79(1)(a) – Drive under the influence of liquor or a drug (Charge 2).
[2] Charge 1 was dismissed on 21 November 2024. Charge 2 was dismissed on 16 January 2025.
[3] The following account is a description of events based on police bodycam footage marked as Exhibit G to the Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025.
[4] Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80(2A); Queensland Police Traffic Manual s. 7.3.3.
[5] A Call for Change - Report of Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence, Judge Deborah Richards, November 2022; Hear Her Voice – Addressing coercive control and domestic and family violence in Queensland, Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, 2021.
[6] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158.
[7] Ibid, s 158A(1).
[8] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2).
[9] MacPherson v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] QCA 396, [14] (McMurdo P); Allison v Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 111, [15].
[10] SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57, [16]-[18].
[11] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534.
[12] Ibid.
[13] SCA v Commissioner of Police [2024] QDC 57, [20].
[14] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158B.
[15] Ibid, s 158B(1).
[16] Ibid, s 158B(2).
[17] Madden v Commissioner of Police [2023] QCA 31, [43]-[52], disapproving Bell v Carter; Ex parte Bell [1992] QCA 245.
[18] Madden v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [49].
[19] Madden, ibid, [43]–[46], [57]-[60]. In Madden, the Court of Appeal found the Defendant was denied procedural fairness at the summary proceeding and on appeal to the District Court for not being allowed to be heard on costs either at, or after, dismissal. This occurred because the learned Magistrate and learned Judge – correctly at the time - followed Bell (supra) which had required formal dismissal to be deferred until the final determination of costs. Because the Court of Appeal in Madden then declined to follow Bell, it is open to this Court to determine costs on the papers following submissions from the parties – see Madden, ibid, [49].
[20] Outline of Argument for the Prosecution dated 25 February 2025, [13].
[21] Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 4(d).
[22] A Call for Change, Report of Commission of Inquiry into Queensland Police Service responses to domestic and family violence, Judge Deborah Richards, November 2022, p 169.
[23] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibit G.
[24] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(b); Maher v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 45, [38].
[25] Wells v Commissioner of Police [2023] QDC 120, [22].
[26] Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80(2A), (8), (11); Queensland Police Traffic Manual, s 7.3.3, s 7.4.3.
[27] Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 80(2A); Queensland Police Traffic Manual, s 7.3.3.
[28] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(c).
[29] Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual, s 3.4.2 applied in Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [41].
[30] Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual, s 3.4.3 applied in Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid.
[31] Queensland Police Service Court Brief dated 29 July 2024.
[32] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibit G.
[33] Ibid; cf Davies v Dorfler [1988] 2 QdR 490.
[34] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibit G.
[35] Davies v Dorfler, ibid.
[36] Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 25.
[37] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(b); Maher v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 45, [38].
[38] Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [32].
[39] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(c).
[40] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, [7]-[13], Exhibits B, C, D, E, F.
[41] Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid.
[42] Power v Lewis [2007] QDC 188, [30].
[43] Power v Lewis, ibid, [25]-[26]; Maher v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [38]; Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [32].
[44] Power v Lewis, ibid.
[45] See for example, Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [6], [40]-[41].
[46] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158, s 158A.
[47] Maher v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [21] citing Lewis v Utting, ex parte Utting (1985) 1 QdR 423, 444.
[48] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2).
[49] Wells v Commissioner of Police, ibid, [36]-[39].
[50] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibits C, D, E, F.
[51] Outline of Argument for the Prosecution dated 25 February 2025, [15].
[52] Ibid, [12].
[53] Magistrates Practice Direction No. 9 of 2010; Case Conferencing Protocol for Summary Offences.
[54] Outline of Argument for the Prosecution dated 25 February 2025, [10].
[55] Ibid, [14].
[56] Ibid, [17].
[57] Ibid, [16].
[58] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibit G.
[59] Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures Manual, s 16.13.1.
[60] Wells v Commissioner of Police, Ibid, [6].
[61] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(e), (f), (h); Latoudis v Casey, Ibid.
[62] Wells v Commissioner of Police, Ibid, [48].
[63] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 158A(2)(e), (f), (h).
[64] Ibid, s 158B.
[65] Allison v Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd [2015] QDC 111, [29].
[66] Justices Regulation 2014 (Qld), Schedule 2, Part 2, Item 1 – Instructions and Preparation for Hearing (up to $1500) and Item 3 – Court attendance other than hearing (up to $250).
[67] Affidavit of Christie Maree Mahoney affirmed 15 January 2025, Exhibit H.
[68] Maher v Commissioner of Police, Ibid.
[69] Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 (Qld), s 30(3).
[70] Ibid, s 31, s 32.
[71] Power v Lewis, Ibid, [29].