Login
‘Impatient’ magistrate’s ruling set aside by District Court
A magistrate who sentenced a man to two months of imprisonment for contempt has been labelled “impatient” and intemperate, with the ruling being overturned.
Lauren Croft
In September — as reported by the Courier Mail — Sunshine Coast man Todd James Dent, 43, pleaded guilty to three charges of possessing dangerous drugs; marijuana, LSD and a number of drug utensils, including a hand grinder and a glass pipe on 11 August.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
On 23 August, in the Queensland Magistrates Court, Mr Dent was sentenced by Magistrate Haydn Stjernqvist to two months of imprisonment with no mention of parole after failing to show up for court on two occasions.
This month, in the District Court of Queensland, Mr Dent, represented by Legal Aid Queensland, successfully appealed his sentence, which His Honour Judge Glen Cash said was a result of “impatience and intemperance”.
Mr Dent had already served 24 days in custody — and as a result, the judge ruled that the appellant was convicted, but not further punished, releasing him from prison.
The appellant’s actions and arguments were described as “gobbledygook” by Magistrate Stjernqvist. When appearing in court and asked why he failed to appear on 3 June, Mr Dent said: “Under section 450N this is not my jurisdiction, Your Honour.”
The appellant did not identify the section he was referring to, but Cash DCJ presumed that Mr Dent “intended that to be a reference to a provision in the United States Code preserving the sovereign immunity of Native Americans and, if so, it was plainly irrelevant to the proceeding before the magistrate”.
“No doubt frustrated by the absence of meaningful response from the appellant, the magistrate dealt with him in a manner which was, in my view, impatient,” His Honour said in the judgment.
“Without taking a plea from the appellant or hearing any evidence, the magistrate declared the appellant had not shown cause as to why he failed to appear on the two occasions as alleged.”
At one point in the original sentencing hearing, the magistrate expressed that he was “running out of patience” after a long day, despite it being just after one o’clock in the afternoon.
Further, the magistrate did not give any reason at all why he imposed Mr Dent’s original sentence — and made no mention of certain principles within the Penalties and Sentences Act that state that imprisonment is regarded as a “last resort”.
The notice of appeal was filed on 14 September, and Cash DCJ admitted Mr Dent to bail two days later, pending the determination of the appeal.
“The appellant argued the sentence was in any event excessive. He is right in that regard, too,” the judgment stated.
“For the fact that the appellant has already served 24 days imprisonment, consideration might be given to the imposition of a fine. This, in my view, would have been the appropriate sentence at first instance, but the appellant ought not to be further punished which would be the result of a financial penalty being imposed now.”
In further observations, His Honour abhorred the previous magistrate’s impatience, despite having to deal with a “difficult” and “unresponsive” litigant — and implored him, in the future, to take the time to “calmly consider” matters.
“Judicial officers administering the criminal laws of this state are obliged to ‘do right by all manner of people’. Sometimes this requires patience and forbearance,” His Honour said in the judgment.
“Always it requires the judicial officer to adhere closely to the requirements of our statute laws. Impatience and intemperance will rarely improve a difficult hearing, and they risk, as was the outcome here, unnecessary error.”
