Bee v Ziebarth [2009] QDC 297
1-1
[2009] QDC 297
DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE DEVEREAUX SC
Appeal No 7 of 2009
HEDRICK JOSEPH BEE Appellant
v.
CONST MJ ZIEBARTH Respondent
MOUNT ISA
..DATE 08/09/2009
ORDER
-- 1 of 3 --
1-2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: The appellant was convicted on 6 February 2009 of
three offences. They were committing a public nuisance,
obstructing police, and assaulting police.
Upon conviction, the learned Magistrate made an award for
costs against the appellant. His Honour said at 1-22, line
50, and following, "I come to the conclusion that the ordinary
rule that the costs follow the event should not be departed
from in this instance, and it does appear that as much as is
possible, the police service have tried to minimise those
costs."
In the result, his Honour made an award of costs which
comprised travel costs for the witness.
The Notice of Appeal dated 27 February 2009, and filed, as I
understand it, on 3 March 2009, pleaded as a ground of appeal
that the sentence imposed in respect to the order for costs is
manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
Mr Hunter, solicitor for the appellant, confines his complaint
on appeal, to the costs order, and Mr Anderson of the Office
of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who appears on behalf
of the respondent, concedes that the Magistrate's exercise of
discretion was affected by error. I respectfully adopt that
concession. If the Magistrate was of the view that costs
ordinarily follow the event, and if that view led to the order
in this case, that view was wrong.
-- 2 of 3 --
1-3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
Any such view was gainsaid by the High Court in Latoudis v
Casey (1990) 97 Australian Law Reports 45.
In the circumstances, I allow the appeal, and set aside that
part of the Magistrate's decision which comprised the order
for costs.
...
HIS HONOUR: What I will do is, having given judgment for the
appellant, I will reserve the question of costs and mention
this appeal again on Thursday morning, the 10th of September
2009.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2009/297