Topic: Substantive Law - Case: Pavlovic v The Commissioner of Police [2005] QDC 341

Topic: Substantive Law

Case: Pavlovic v The Commissioner of Police [2005] QDC 341

Pavlovic v The Commissioner of Police [2005] QDC 341, was heard on October 14, 2005, with the appellant; Zoran Pavlovic, appealing against his conviction for wilful damage, under s 469 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was heard in Beenleigh District Court, with Dearden DCJ presiding, and The Commissioner of Police as the respondent. The appeal was dismissed in the judgment handed down on October 20, 2005.

Basis for the Action:

The grounds for appeal was based on three points. The first being that a letter provided by a witness was incorrectly ruled inadmissible by the judicial officer. Secondly a miscarriage of justice occurred as fresh evidence was not brought before the judicial officer. And thirdly, that the judgment of the judicial officer was “unsafe and unsatisfactory.” The appeal was raised under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886, with the appellant feeling aggrieved by the order made against him.

Material Facts:

The appellant engaged the services of Troy and Daniel Oliver to undertake plumbing work on his property. Following the completion of this work there was a dispute over outstanding money. The appellant then invited Troy and Daniel Oliver to his residence to discuss this. A discussion took place in which the appellant said he was not going to pay them for their work, before ordering them off his property. As they did this the appellant approached their car and kicked the back quarter-panel, causing damage.

Judgement:

The appellant’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed with the Deardon DCJ ruling as follows. Firstly he found the trial judge was correct in ruling the letter from Ms Aneeta Prince as inadmissible on the grounds that, she should have called to give evidence in person or by phone, and that the prosecutor did not give consent for the letter to be tendered as evidence. A witness needs to be available to give evidence personally and be cross-examined. He also refused to allow leave for the appellant to find fresh evidence, finding no miscarriage of justice.

In regards to the grievance that the decision of the trial judge was unsafe and unsatisfactory he argued that the trial judge was right to accept the evidence provided by Troy and Daniel Oliver, and reject the evidence of the appellant, having the opportunity to weigh up the differing viewpoints as well as the demeanor and credibility of each witness. In determining whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory Deardon DCJ drew attention to the case M v R, and looked at its reasoning, agreeing that the trial judge looked upon the whole of the evidence and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and that the judge was in a position to evaluate evidence that the appeal court could not. Deardon DCJ found the trial judge correctly formed conclusions and directed himself to the appropriate law.

---

To learn more about the services offered by Teddington Legal Gold Coast visit our website.