• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Jones elected to have the matter determined by the Magistrates Court. At trial, the Council called a Parking Compliance Officer, who gave evidence about observing Jones’s vehicle parked without payment. Jones did not dispute parking there. His evidence was that he remembered the area as not requiring payment on Sundays, based on a previous visit, and that he had made a mistake (3–4). That evidence was unchallenged.

Jones argued that his belief raised a defence under criminal law. The magistrate considered his argument by reference to s 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld), which concerns an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. The magistrate concluded that the parking status of the street was a question of law rather than fact. The magistrate found the offence proved, convicted Jones, and ordered payment of the $103 infringement amount along with costs of approximately $1,865.75 (7–10).

Jones appealed to the District Court under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The District Court judge, following Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493, treated Jones’s mistake as one of law, not fact. The District Court also rejected his other grounds and dismissed the appeal, making a further costs order of $1,800 (11–12).

A further appeal was not available as of right. Under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), Jones needed leave from the Court of Appeal. The Court, comprising Mullins P, Bradley JA and Crow J, dismissed the leave application with costs fixed at $1,800 (13, 31–34). Crow J delivered the reasons, with Mullins P and Bradley JA agreeing.

Why the court decided this way

The Court applied the leave-to-appeal approach in Akermanis v the Commissioner of Police [2025] QCA 35. The passage quoted at paragraph 14 states that although the Court’s discretion is unfettered, leave is not given lightly after an applicant has already had two judicial hearings. Ordinarily, the applicant must show both a substantial injustice requiring correction and a reasonable argument that an error occurred. An arguable error on its own is not ordinarily enough.

Crow J concluded that Jones’s application did not meet either part of that test. The main point was the character of Jones’s asserted mistake. Jones knew where he had parked. He believed that the law did not require payment on Sundays at that location. The Court considered that a mistaken understanding of what the law required, rather than a mistaken belief about a factual circumstance relevant to an element of the offence (15, 20).

The Court’s explanation relied on the distinction drawn in Ostrowski v Palmer. As Crow J described it, s 24’s reference to “the real state of things” is directed to circumstances relating to the elements of the offence. It does not make a mistake about whether the law prohibits conduct into a mistake of fact. The judgment illustrates that distinction through the example discussed in Ostrowski: a person who, because of navigational error, honestly and reasonably believes they are in a different location may be mistaken about a fact relevant to the offence. By contrast, someone who knows where they are but believes fishing there is lawful is mistaken about the law (19).

The analogy was direct. Jones was not said to have mistaken the street or the location of his vehicle. Rather, he remembered or believed that parking there on a Sunday did not require payment. Crow J concluded that this was a belief about the legal effect of s 106(1) of the TORUM Act. The District Court’s classification of the mistake as one of law therefore provided no reasonable basis for a further appeal (20).

Crow J also addressed Jones’s remaining contentions, rather than treating them as capable of changing the leave analysis. The constitutional arguments did not establish that parking regulation was within an exclusive Commonwealth power. The judgment relied on s 107 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, which preserves State legislative powers except in areas exclusively vested in the Commonwealth, and stated that parking was not such an area (22–23). The fine was not an excise tax: the Court said it was neither a tax nor an excise imposed on or in relation to goods (24). The s 92 argument also failed because Jones had not established how his parking on Russell Street related to interstate trade (25).

The Court further found no demonstrated connection between an earlier reference to Jones as a “sovereign citizen” and the conduct or outcome of his trial. The presiding magistrate had not used that description at trial, and the earlier reference was not shown to have affected either the trial or the District Court appeal (26). The other points, concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, model-litigant principles, an alleged incident involving a piece of paper in court, and the assertion that roads are owned by the people, likewise did not establish a relevant error. The judgment stated that the Council was not the State or a State agency for the model-litigant contention, that the alleged courtroom incident was irrelevant to guilt, and that the Council had statutory authority to charge for parking (27–30).

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to change the law on mistake of fact or mistake of law. It applies the existing distinction described in Ostrowski v Palmer to Jones’s circumstances. The key distinction is between a mistaken belief about the facts that make up an offence and a mistaken belief about the legal status of known facts. The first may fall within the type of mistake contemplated by s 24, depending on the circumstances. The second, on the reasoning set out here, is a mistake of law and does not become a mistake of fact simply because the person honestly held it (19–20).

The judgment also applies an existing appellate leave threshold, citing Akermanis. That threshold concerns the Court’s decision whether to permit a further appeal, not the elements of the parking offence itself. The Court emphasised that a person who has already had two judicial hearings must ordinarily demonstrate both substantial injustice and a reasonable argument of error to obtain leave (14–15).

The “before” position described by the judgment is therefore not a former rule replaced by a new one. The judgment records the earlier decisions: the Magistrates Court treated the asserted belief as a mistake of law, and the District Court followed Ostrowski in reaching the same characterisation. The Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb that treatment. The “after” position in this case is that Jones’s application was dismissed, but the judgment does not state a new general rule beyond applying the cited authorities and statutes to the evidence and arguments before it.

The reasons are fact-specific in their application. They do not determine every possible question about s 24, every kind of mistaken belief about parking, or every constitutional challenge to local parking regulation. In particular, the judgment deals with a person who knew where he parked and whose asserted mistake concerned whether the law required payment on a Sunday.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At paragraph 14, the Court quoted the leave threshold from Akermanis: leave will usually be granted only where it is necessary to correct substantial injustice and there is a reasonable argument that an error occurred. In plain English, a further appeal is not simply another chance to repeat arguments already considered. The applicant must identify a genuine issue of error and explain why refusing correction would cause substantial injustice.

At paragraph 15, Crow J applied that threshold directly: “there is neither a substantial injustice suffered by the applicant that requires any correction, nor is there any reasonable argument that there is an error to be corrected.” This is the operative reason for refusing leave. The Court’s view was not merely that the case had already been heard twice; it was that the proposed appeal did not satisfy the stated criteria.

Paragraph 19 explains the mistake-of-fact distinction through Ostrowski. The “real state of things” means the real circumstances relating to the elements of the offence, rather than whether the law makes those circumstances an offence. Put simply, a factual misunderstanding about where a person is may be different from knowing where one is but misunderstanding whether the law permits the conduct there.

Paragraph 20 applies that distinction to Jones: he “knew where he was parking” but believed the law did not require payment on Sundays. The passage matters because it identifies precisely what Jones did and did not claim to misunderstand. His account was not that he had parked somewhere other than Russell Street, or that some other factual condition applied. The mistaken premise was that Sunday parking there was legally free.

Paragraph 25 addresses the s 92 argument. The Court said Jones had not established how parking his vehicle on Russell Street had anything to do with interstate trade. In plain English, the judgment found no factual connection between the local parking charge and the constitutional freedom he invoked.

Paragraph 26 similarly focuses on a missing connection: although a note from an earlier mention referred to Jones as a “sovereign citizen”, he did not demonstrate that the comment affected the trial before the presiding magistrate or the District Court appeal. The Court therefore did not treat the earlier reference, by itself, as proof of an unfair trial.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The clearest fact pattern addressed is where a person knows the location and circumstances of their conduct but believes, incorrectly, that the law permits it. In Jones, the applicant knew he parked in a metered space on Russell Street and said he believed that Sunday parking there did not require payment. The Court characterised that as a mistake about the law, not a mistake about a fact relevant to the offence (4, 20).

The comparison in paragraph 19 identifies a contrasting type of situation, drawn from the reasoning in Ostrowski. A navigational error that leads someone honestly and reasonably to believe they are in a different location may concern a fact relevant to whether the conduct contravenes the applicable rule. The Court used that example to explain why the legal character of the mistaken belief matters. The judgment does not decide any hypothetical case beyond the example it recounts.

For appellate practitioners, the procedural pattern is also significant. The decision addresses an application for leave after an appeal from the Magistrates Court had already been dismissed in the District Court. The applicant needed to satisfy the leave threshold described in Akermanis, rather than merely show disagreement with the earlier outcomes (12–15).

The remaining grounds illustrate that broad constitutional or procedural labels will not, without a demonstrated connection to the case, establish an arguable error on this record. For example, the s 92 point lacked a shown link to interstate trade; the earlier “sovereign citizen” reference was not shown to affect the trial; and the alleged courtroom paper-throwing was treated as irrelevant to whether the parking offence was proved (25–29). These observations describe the arguments and evidence in this case, not a complete statement of how every similar contention must be decided.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment is dated 17 October 2025. The supplied text contains no later judicial decisions discussing or applying Jones v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCA 195. It is therefore not possible, on this source alone, to describe subsequent treatment or to say whether later courts have followed, distinguished or questioned it.

The authorities that the Court itself used are identifiable. Akermanis v the Commissioner of Police [2025] QCA 35 supplied the leave-to-appeal approach quoted at paragraph 14. Ostrowski v Palmer (2004) 218 CLR 493 supplied the reasoning on the distinction between mistake of fact and mistake of law, which Crow J explained at paragraphs 16–20. Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263 and Browns Transport Pty Ltd v Crop (1958) 100 CLR 117 were cited in support of the conclusion that the fine was not a tax or excise (24).

The judgment also records that the District Court followed Ostrowski in treating Jones’s mistake as one of law (12). The Court of Appeal agreed with that characterisation and relied on the High Court reasoning to explain it. It does not report that any authority was overruled or distinguished.

Still-open questions

The judgment resolves the leave application before it, but it does not explore the full boundaries of s 24 of the Criminal Code (Qld). It does not examine a different parking case where the person’s misunderstanding concerned an underlying fact, such as the identity of the parking space or another circumstance relevant to the offence. The navigational example is explanatory, not a ruling on a new factual dispute (19).

Nor does the judgment comprehensively address every possible legal issue arising from parking charges, local government authority, constitutional allocation of powers, or the operation of s 92. Its conclusions concern the arguments advanced and the evidentiary record described. For example, the Court rejected the s 92 argument because Jones had not established a connection to interstate trade; it did not set out a broader analysis of all possible interactions between parking regulation and interstate commerce (25).

The judgment’s comments about the Council’s statutory authority refer to ss 11 and 242 of the City of Brisbane Act 2010 (Qld), and ss 101 and 106 of the TORUM Act (30, footnote 5). The text does not analyse those provisions in detail. It records the statutory basis for the Court’s answer to the contention that roads are owned by the people and cannot be subject to parking charges.

Finally, the decision does not determine whether any further court will adopt its reasoning in another case. Its express disposition is confined to refusing leave to Jones, with costs fixed at $1,800 (34).

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.