Attorney-General (Qld) v Morris & Anor

[2015] QCA 112

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law (Qld)
2. › Kable doctrine
3. › Validity of State legislation
4. › Deeming provisions in criminal law
5. › Whether statutory provision requiring court to proceed on fictional factual premise impermissibly intrudes upon judicial function
6. › Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), s 114
1. Criminal Law
2. › Road traffic offences
3. › Camera-detected offences
4. › Deeming provisions
5. › Person in charge of vehicle deemed to have committed offence
6. › Basis of criminal responsibility distinct from identity of actual driver
7. › Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), ss 113, 114
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Cases stated and reference of question of law
3. › Removal of proceeding into Court of Appeal
4. › Special circumstances
5. › Constitutional validity of significant statutory provision
6. › Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 61(5)(a)

Quick Take

Section 114 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld), which deems the person in charge of a vehicle to have committed a camera-detected speeding offence, does not infringe the Kable doctrine because it does not require a magistrate to find a fictional fact — criminal responsibility is attributed based on the person's status as person in charge, the happening of a prescribed offence, and its detection by a photographic device, without any finding as to the identity of the actual driver. The Kable doctrine would only be engaged if a statute required a court to make a finding of fact known to be fictional.