In the recent decision of Petersen v Ipswich City Council [2016] QDC 7, Bradley DCJ found that there was no case to answer and set aside the conviction of the Appellant, who was alleged to have enabled her election signs to be placed on an Ipswich City Council local government area without the necessary licence.
Facts
An appeal was brought before the District Court by Patricia Petersen who had been convicted of three charges relating to the placement of election signage within an Ipswich City Council local government area without a licence, in contravention of section 5 of Ipswich City Council Local Law No. 3 (Commercial Licensing) 2013. At the time, the Appellant was leader of the Australian Independents and a candidate for Senate in the 2013 Commonwealth elections. Although it was determined that the Appellant had not placed the signs herself, the matter before the Court was whether, per section 7 Criminal Code (QLD), it could be shown she had "enabled" the illegal placing of the signs.
In the first instance, the Magistrate found that such enabling was brought about by the authorisation of the sign, evidenced in writing on each sign which stated "Authorised P Petersen..." and by a quote published by The Queensland Times where the Appellant was quoted as saying "I am not paying a cent and I am going to continue to put my signs up". The Appellant denied having authorised the production and placement of the signage.
The appeal was brought on the three grounds, being that the Magistrate had erred in; convicting the appellant where evidence of the state of mind of the appellant had not been adduced; finding that there was a case to answer at the close of the prosecution case; and finding there was sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Decision
Bradley DCJ held that in order to establish the case against the Appellant the Ipswich City Council had to "adduce either direct evidence, or evidence from which an inference could be drawn, that the appellant did an act ... with the purpose of enabling another to place the signs in the particular locations ... with the intention of helping that person to commit the offence...and that when she did the act...the appellant knew that it was intended that the signs be so placed."
His Honour held that the magistrate erred in finding that there was a case to answer as the Ipswich City Council had failed to produce evidence that the appellant had authorised the production or placement of the signage, noting that the authorisation printed on the sign was insufficient. Furthermore, it was held that there was a distinct lack of evidence from which to adduce the appellant's intention to help another commit the offence or that she had knowledge that the signs were to be placed at all.
His Honour dismissed the assertion that the Appellant's alleged statement to the Queensland Times was indicative of the Appellant's intention as it could not be considered an admission in relation to the particular charges brought, or in relation to the particular placement of the signs in question.
Ultimately, Bradley DCJ held that the Appellant did not have a case to answer and set aside the convictions, penalties and costs imposed by the Magistrates Court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
