Edwards v Queensland Police Service [2026] QDC 41

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Edwards v Queensland Police Service [2026] QDC 41 PARTIES: EDWARDS, Luke John (appellant) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (respondent) FILE NO: 1816 OF 2025 (Brisbane District Court) DIVISION: Civil PROCEEDING: Appeal pursuant to s. 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court, Brisbane DELIVERED ON: Orders pronounced on 27 March 2026 Reasons published on 21 May 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 24 February 2026 JUDGE: McCarthy KC DCJ ORDERS: 1. The appeal allowed. 2. The conviction is set aside, and a verdict of acquittal is entered. 3. No order as to costs. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – Where the defendant pleaded not guilty to the offence of contravention of a police banning notice pursuant to section 602Q of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – Where the appellant contended, by notice, that the person that gave the initial police banning notice did not explain or cause to be explained those matters within section 602E of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – Where the appellant contended that he had not been properly informed of the area he was banned from – Where the appellant contended that the police banning notice was invalid and so the consequent conviction for contravention of such a notice could not stand – Whether the requirements to explain or cause to be explained relevant matters before giving an initial police banning notice effect the validity of the initial police banning notice LEGISLATION: Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss. 222, 223. -- 1 of 9 -- 2 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss. 602C, 602E, 602G, 602H, 602I, 602J, 602Q. CASES: Millar v Queensland Police Service [2025] QCA 14. COUNSEL: L Edwards (self-represented) T Humphrey for the respondent SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent Introduction. [1] On 29 May 2025, the appellant was convicted after trial of one charge of “contravention of a police banning notice” pursuant to section 602Q of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The appellant was convicted and fined $150, and a conviction was not recorded. The payment of the fine was referred to the State Penalty Enforcement Register. The appellant appealed against his conviction. [2] On 27 March 2026, I allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction for that offence. These are my reasons for doing so. The Grounds of the Appeal and Submissions. [3] The appellant was charged that “on the 1st day of March 2025 at Brisbane City in the Central Division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of Queensland [he], being a person named in a police banning notice did, without reasonable excuse, contravene the banning notice by attending Queen Street Mall”.1 [4] The appellant represented himself both in the trial and on the appeal. [5] The appellant contended, by notice, that the person that gave the initial police banning notice did not explain or cause to be explained those matters within section 602E of the Act. The appellant further contended, by notice, that the map provided to him, when that person gave him the initial police banning notice, did not identify that it was the “City Safe Night Precinct” that he had been banned from. [6] In the appeal, it was observed that the appellant had not been given the opportunity to make any closing argument in the trial. [7] It was contended that the police banning notice was invalid and so the consequent conviction for contravention of such a notice could not stand. [8] The appellant asserted that he had attempted to raise the issue in the trial. 1 Section 602Q of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). -- 2 of 9 -- 3 [9] The appellant asserted that he had raised the issue in a subsequent trial alleging a further contravention of the same police banning notice and was acquitted before another presiding magistrate. [10] I permitted the respondent to make relevant enquiries and file additional submissions to this court. [11] The respondent confirmed the accuracy of the appellant’s assertion of subsequent acquittal and conceded on this appeal that “[T]he police banning notice served on the appellant did not comply with section 602E of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, namely subsections (c) and (d)” and further, that “[T]he Magistrate could not be satisfied on the evidence before the court that the police banning notice served on the appellant was in the approved form in accordance with section 602H of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act”. [12] I found that the police officer giving the initial police banning notice had not complied with the mandatory requirements of section 602E of the Act. I determined that the banning notice must not be given without such compliance, and was invalid, and so the contravention of that banning notice, in those circumstances, was not an offence at law. Upon that determination it was unnecessary to dispose of the additional grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. The Nature of the Appeal. [13] In Millar v Queensland Police Service2, the Court of Appeal stated relevantly3: “Section 223 of the [Justices Act] provides that an appeal under s 222 is by way of rehearing on the evidence given in the proceeding in the Magistrates Court…[T]he nature of the review task undertaken by the District Court judge on such an appeal is settled. See McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2018] 2 Qd R 612 at [47]. What is involved in the District Court judge conducting a real review of the evidence and making up the judge’s own mind about the case was set out by Sofronoff P (with whom Gotterson and Morrison JJA agreed) in Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132 at p.5: ‘Consequently, the learned District Court judge had to consider each of the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant and, having regard to the evidence led in the Magistrates Court and paying due regard to the advantage that the learned Magistrate had in seeing the witnesses give evidence, determine for himself the facts of the case and the legal consequences that follow from such findings of fact.’” 2 [2025] QCA 14. 3 Ibid at [3]. -- 3 of 9 -- 4 The Critical Facts and Conduct of the Trial. [14] At the commencement of the trial, the appellant raised that he had “notified the other side that he intended to rely on deficiencies of the banning notice” and that he assumed that the notice would be presented to the magistrate.4 The magistrate was alert to this issue and informed the appellant, “if they can’t prove the banning notice, you don’t get found guilty”.5 [15] Only two witnesses were called in the prosecution case. [16] Officer Elory-Plunkett informed the court that on 3 February 2025, he was an Acting Sergeant on duty at the Brisbane City Police Station.6 He was contacted by Constable Smith and approved an initial police banning notice, based upon information regarding the appellant’s involvement in an unrelated “public nuisance” in the Queen Street Mall.7 The officer informed the court that his approval was informed by the ongoing risk that the offence would occur again, given the nature of the appellant’s “public nuisance” offence and his history.8 [17] The officer was patrolling the Queen Street Mall on 1 March 2025, and sighted the appellant walk past into the KFC on Albert Street. The officer confirmed that the appellant was banned from “being in the city”, entered the KFC and assisted in arresting the appellant for the contravention of the initial police banning notice.9 [18] The appellant cross-examined the officer of his understanding of the details placed on the notice. The officer explained that he approved the giving of the notice and that he did not fill the details in on the notice: “I don’t tell him what to write on it, mate. I don’t know what you’re not understanding. So, he asked me, ‘I want to issue this person an initial police banning notice’. He explains the situation and then he asks, ‘Do you approve?’ and I say, ‘yes’. And then he fills it out.” [19] The appellant then produced a document to the officer, which was accepted to be a copy of the issued initial police banning notice.10 The appellant suggested that the notice used the acronym “SNP” without any explanation. The officer informed the appellant that the notice provided read “attempting to, entering or remaining in a public place in a safe night precinct, including all the licensed premise... and then he’s written ‘City SNP, FTV SNP, Inner West SNP’”. The officer testified that “It says ‘public place in a safe night precinct’, and then it lists the relevant safe night precincts”.11 4 TOP (Trial) 1-4.15-31. 5 TOP (Trial) 1-4.9. 6 TOP (Trial) 1-7.15-20. 7 TOP (Trial) 1-8.9-20. 8 TOP (Trial) 1-17.38-42; 1-21.9-20. 9 TOP (Trial) 1-8.25-45. 10 This document was not tendered in the trial proceeding. 11 TOP (Trial) 1-11.1 to 1-12.33. -- 4 of 9 -- 5 [20] The appellant engaged the officer in discourse and informed the officer that “I retrospectively remove all your police powers on that date that you say that you authorised that notice”.12 The appellant suggested that the officer’s powers were imaginary, like Superman in the movies. The officer confirmed repeatedly that the powers he exercised were derived from that legislated by the Queensland Parliament in the Policer Powers and Responsibilities Act.13 [21] The officer confirmed that the notice read on the reverse side, “[T]his initial police banning notice does not prohibit you, as the respondent for the notice, from entering or remaining in your residence place of employment or place of education”. The officer gave evidence that there was no suggestion that the appellant lived, worked or was educated in the KFC.14 [22] Constable James Parisis informed the court that at 11.20am on 3 February 2025, he was present in the Brisbane City Police Beat, when the appellant was issued with a police banning notice. The police banning notice was issued by Constable Smith. The police banning notice was issued to the appellant and explained verbally to the appellant. “... a photo was taken of the banning notice and the defendant, which is part of our process of issuing a banning notice. It was then explained to the defendant with both paper copies of a map surrounding the boundaries of that banning notice and the dates and times of when that banning notice would be set for.”15 [23] The officer was shown a photographed image and identified it as a “true and accurate copy of the banning notice”. The officer also identified the body worn camera footage capturing the service of the relevant police banning notice.16 [24] The officer informed the court that at about 7pm on 1 March 2025, he was present with Constable Elory-Plunkett and Constable Smith, when they sighted the appellant enter and sit down in one of the back corners of the KFC on Albert Street.17 The appellant was approached and informed the officers that “he was grabbing a drink and using the toilets”.18 The appellant was arrested and taken to the Brisbane Police Beat. The body worn camera footage of that process was later tendered.19 [25] The officer identified a map produced by Google and informed the court that it depicted the Brisbane Safe Night Precinct and the location of KFC.20 The map was tendered.21 The appellant informed the court that it was a different document to those 12 TOP (Trial) 1-13.24-25. 13 TOP (Trial) 1-14.1-44. 14 TOP (Trial) 1-16.8-46. 15 TOP (Trial) 1-23.20-45. 16 Exhibit 1. 17 TOP (Trial) 1-27.15-28. 18 TOP (Trial) 1-30.25-35. 19 Exhibit 4; TOP (Trial) 1-31 to 32. 20 TOP (Trial) 1-30-45. 21 Exhibit 2. -- 5 of 9 -- 6 documents seen in the body worn camera footage, but did not persist in an objection to the tender of the map.22 [26] The officer again identified the photograph of the issued police banning notice. The appellant raised the issue of the photograph not showing the reverse side of the notice, objecting to the tender of the photograph.23 [27] The magistrate queried the prosecutor in the following exchange: “[Prosecutor]: The rear side of the notice is not relevant in today’s proceedings, your Honour… [His Honour]: I think it probably is… [Prosecutor]: …in the prosecution’s submissions anyway.” [28] The magistrate permitted the tender of the photograph, noting the appellant’s observation that the back of the document had not been re-produced.24 [29] The appellant suggested to the officer that he was living in the “Safe Night Precinct”, and the officer informed the court that he was not aware where the appellant was living at the time.25 [30] The appellant declined to give evidence.26 The magistrate informed the appellant that he did not need to hear from him and delivered his reasons ex tempore.27 The Ex Tempore Reasons. [31] At the commencement of his reasons, the magistrate properly acknowledged that “there’s been some contest as to the validity of the notice, bearing in mind that the person who issued it – Constable Whyte is not here to give evidence”.28 [32] The magistrate gave appropriate focused consideration to the compliance with section 602C of the Act, and the requirement for “approval of a police officer of at least the rank of sergeant, unless the police officer giving the notice has that rank”.29 The magistrate concluded that the appropriate ranked officer, Sergeant Elory-Plunkett had given Constable Smith the approval to give the police banning notice. That approval was permitted to have been sought and given verbally by telephone.30 The magistrate concluded that Sergeant Elory-Plunkett had reasonably satisfied himself that the 22 TOP (Trial) 1-28.1-20. 23 TOP (Trial) 1-28.33 to 1-29.45. 24 Exhibit 3; TOP (Trial) 1-29.35-45. 25 TOP (Trial) 1-35.1-10. 26 TOP (Trial) 1-36 to 39. 27 TOP (Trial) 1-39. 28 TOP (Reasons) 1-2.4-7. 29 s. 602C(2) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). 30 s. 602C(4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). -- 6 of 9 -- 7 giving of the notice was necessary because of the requisite matters in section 602C(3) of the Act. [33] The magistrate concluded that the initial police banning notice had been appropriately served, and remarked “that much is clear from exhibit 1 where he’s given the banning notice”.31 [34] The magistrate concluded that the appellant was located within the area from which he was banned.32 The magistrate concluded that the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for being in the area particularised by the prosecution, in contravention of the banning order.33 The magistrate concluded that the appellant was not in his residence, place of employment or education. The magistrate found that the elements of the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was guilty of the offence. The Relevant Legislation. [35] Section 602C of the Act requires that: “(1) A police officer may give a police banning notice (an initial police banning notice) to an adult. (2) Before giving the initial police banning notice, the police officer must obtain the approval of a police officer of at least the rank of Sergeant, unless the police officer giving the notice has that rank. (3) The police officer giving the initial police banning notice or, if an approval is required under subsection (2), the approval, must be reasonably satisfied that giving the notice is necessary because – (a) the respondent has behaved in a disorderly, offensive, threatening or violent way [the legislation then provides examples]; and (b) the respondent’s behaviour was at, or in the vicinity of, a relevant public place; and (c) The person’s ongoing presence, or presence in the immediate future, at the relevant public place and any other place stated in the notice, poses an unacceptable risk of – (i) causing violence at the places; or (ii) impacting on the safety of other persons attending the places; or 31 TOP (Reasons) 1-2.34. 32 TOP (Reasons) 1-2.40-48. 33 TOP (Reasons) 1-3.1-5; s. 602J of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). -- 7 of 9 -- 8 (iii) disrupting or interfering with the peaceful passage, or reasonable enjoyment of other persons, at the places. [36] Section 602E of the Act requires that: “Before giving an initial police banning notice, the police officer giving the notice must explain, or cause to be explained, to the respondent – (a) the duration and effect of the notice; and (b) the consequences of contravening the notice; and (c) an extended police banning notice may be given, under division 3; and (d) the initial police banning notice may be cancelled by a police officer under section 602JA; and (e) the respondent may apply to the commissioner to amend or cancel the initial police banning notice under division 5.” [37] Section 602G of the Act provides how the initial police banning notice may be given – by personal service or sending the notice by electronic communication to a unique address nominated by the respondent in the presence of the officer. [38] Section 602H of the Act provides that the notice must be in the approved form and state specified matters. Those matters include: “the acts that are prohibited by the notice”; “that it is an offence to contravene the notice”; “that a respondent may apply to the commissioner to amend or cancel the notice and the process for seeking amendment or cancellation”. Conclusion - The Verdict. [39] Cognisant of the advantage held by the magistrate to observe the witnesses before him, I too had no difficulty accepting the evidence provided by each officer. Their evidence was supported in a material way by the body worn camera footage. [40] However, I am unable to conclude that the officer serving the notice observed the mandatory requirements of section 602E of the Act prior to giving the initial police banning notice. [41] I have reviewed all of the Exhibits, including Exhibits 1 and 3. [42] Exhibit 3 is an incomplete replication of the initial police banning notice. The replication is deficient of many of the matters required to be in the notice.34 34 s. 602H(e)-(j) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). -- 8 of 9 -- 9 [43] In my viewing of Exhibit 1, it is apparent to me that the police correctly explained the duration and the effect of the notice, and that the notice may be extended, prior to giving it to the appellant.35 The officer showed the appellant various maps and described the areas from which he was banned, including the “Brisbane Safe Night Precinct”. The officer advised the appellant if he “wanted further information”, it was contained on the reverse of the notice that he had been given. As this was being done, the appellant was vociferously defending the lawfulness of his actions that evening. [44] The plain reading of section 602E of the Act, requires in mandatory terms, the officer to explain or caused to be explained those matters contained in paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive, before giving the initial police banning notice (my emphasis). [45] Unlike the saving provision in section 602I(3) of the Act, which provides “[H]owever, a police banning notice is not invalid merely because the approval is not in writing, if the police officer makes the written record as required under subsection (2) at the first reasonable opportunity after the notice is given”, the legislator has not provided for validity of the notice where there has been non-compliance with section 602E of the Act. [46] The reverse side of the initial police banning notice was not in evidence in the trial and its contents are unknown. The provision of a document within which those matters prescribed in section 602E of the Act are contained (even if could have been proved to have been provided) does not meet the legislative requirement that those matters be explained or caused to be explained prior to the giving of the relevant notice. The officer neither explained not arranged for another to explain these critical matters. [47] The failure to comply with the provisions of section 602E of the Act results in the invalidity of the initial police banning notice, and the subsequent contravention is not an offence. [48] Upon my own real review of the evidence, I am not satisfied of the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Orders. [49] The appeal is allowed. [50] The conviction is set aside, and a verdict of acquittal is entered. [51] No order as to costs. 35 s. 602E(a), (b) and (c) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). -- 9 of 9 --