Tierney v Commissioner of Police

[2011] QCA 327

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Interference with discretion or finding of judge
4. › Extension of time to appeal
5. › Whether District Court judge erred in refusing extension of time
6. › Whether proposed appeal had realistic prospect of success
7. › Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 222, 224(1)(a)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Fair trial
5. › Disability of accused
6. › Whether magistrate had duty to investigate claimed brain damage
7. › Whether failure to accommodate disability denied fair trial
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Interference with finding of fact
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence
6. › Whether magistrate erred in preferring prosecution witnesses
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact based on credibility
4. › Distinction between credibility-based findings and inferences from uncontroverted facts
5. › Whether magistrate failed to use or palpably misused advantage

Quick Take

A magistrate has no duty to inquire into or investigate an accused's claimed brain damage or disability where no medical evidence is tendered and the accused is represented by counsel and solicitor who could be expected to raise any concerns. The obligation to make reasonable procedural allowances for disabilities arises only where there is a properly raised issue regarding the defendant's medical conditions. On an application for extension of time to appeal, the District Court need only make a preliminary assessment of the merits of the proposed appeal, not a thorough analysis of the facts.