Bee v Ziebarth

[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

1-1

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	10
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."	20
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	30
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	40
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	50

ordinarily follow the event, and if that view led to the order
in this case, that view was wrong.
Any such view was gainsaid by the High Court in Latoudis v

1-2

ORDER

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.	10
...
HIS HONOUR: What I will do is, having given judgment for the
appellant, I will reserve the question of costs and mention	20
this appeal again on Thursday morning, the 10th of September
2009.

-----

30
40
50

1-3 ORDER 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of Queensland, Hedrick Joseph Bee, the appellant, appealed against the decision of the respondent, Const MJ Ziebarth, who was represented by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The central issue in the appeal was the appellant's conviction on three counts: committing a public nuisance, obstructing police, and assaulting police. The appellant contested only the costs awarded to the respondent following the conviction.

The court had to determine if the Magistrate's decision to award costs to the respondent was legally sound. The appellant argued that the costs awarded were manifestly excessive. The respondent conceded that the Magistrate's exercise of discretion was affected by an error of law. The court accepted this concession and noted that the Magistrate's view that costs ordinarily follow the event was incorrect, as clarified by the High Court in Latoudis v Casey. Consequently, the court found that the Magistrate's decision on the costs order was erroneous.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the Magistrate's decision that included the order for costs. The judge reserved the question of costs and scheduled a further mention of the appeal to decide on the appropriate costs. This decision underscored the importance of correctly applying legal principles when awarding costs in criminal matters.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established