Commissioner of Police v Antoniolli

[2021] QCA 237

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Criminal appeal
3. › Leave to appeal under s 118 District Court of Queensland Act 1967
4. › Prosecution appeal from acquittal on appeal
5. › Whether leave necessary to correct substantial injustice
6. › Whether reasonable argument of error that would justify relief sought
7. › District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Interference with judge's finding of fact
4. › Functions of appellate court
5. › Where inferences of fact involved
6. › Whether factual finding unreasonable in the Hocking v Bell sense
7. › Whether overwhelming preponderance of evidence against finding
1. Criminal Law
2. › Fraud
3. › Dishonesty
4. › Whether respondent held honest belief that practice was within council policy
5. › Whether use of community donations fund to pay for charity auction items was outside or prohibited by council policy
6. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)

Quick Take

On a prosecution application for leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967, the error sought to be corrected must be such as would support the applicant's claim for relief; it does not avail an applicant to identify a reasonably arguable case of error which, even if corrected, would not justify the remedy sought. A factual finding by the District Court judge can only be overturned if there is no evidence to support it or it is unreasonable in the Hocking v Bell sense — meaning there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against it making it almost perverse. An error in the construction of a policy, even if established, does not necessarily justify overturning a factual finding as to a respondent's actual state of belief where there is no necessary logical connection between the proper construction and the belief.