Smith v Ash

(2010) 200 A Crim R 115; [2010] QCA 112

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Appeals as to costs
4. › Jurisdiction to entertain
5. › Summary criminal proceedings
6. › Whether appeal against costs order precluded where defendant pleaded guilty
7. › Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 157, 222(1), 222(2)(c)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Summary criminal proceedings
4. › Discretion to award costs
5. › Whether Magistrate wrongly exercised discretion in refusing professional costs
6. › Whether availability of alternative enforcement mechanism relevant to costs discretion
7. › Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 157
8. › State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Purposive construction
3. › Departure from literal meaning
4. › Whether literal construction produces anomaly or injustice
5. › Whether court may depart from literal meaning to give effect to legislative purpose
6. › Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
4. › Criteria for grant of leave
5. › Whether point of general importance justifies leave despite small amount in dispute

Quick Take

The Court of Appeal was divided on whether s 222(2)(c) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) precludes appeals to the District Court against costs orders where a defendant has pleaded guilty. McMurdo P and Chesterman JA held it does not; Fraser JA held it does. The question remains unsettled as the majority on the orders did not agree on this jurisdictional point. A Magistrate exercising the costs discretion under s 157 is entitled to take into account whether a prosecutor could reasonably have adopted an alternative and cheaper method of collecting a fine, per McMurdo P, though Chesterman JA (dissenting) held such considerations were irrelevant to the costs discretion.