Queensland Police Service v Rowley [2025] QMC 18

[3] The hearing was then delayed to allow Mr Rowley to submit a Right to Information application to the Information Commissioner. After the Commissioner decided not to release documents, Mr Rowley requested a further adjournment to apply for a review of the decision. The Court granted Mr Rowley's request to allow him to properly prepare his defence.

Does this Application provide any ground to reopen the proceeding?

[1] Unfortunately for Mr Rowley, nothing in his application provides any ground to reopen the proceeding.[2] This is because a proceeding will not be reopened simply to allow a party to re-argue their case on existing or additional evidence.[3]

[2] The High Court has noted that the resources for the resolution of disputes are in high demand and serve the public as a whole, not merely the parties to the proceedings.[4] Finality in proceedings is highly desirable, because any further action beyond the hearing can be costly and unnecessarily burdensome on the parties.[5]

[3] In the busy and high-volume Magistrates Court jurisdiction, thousands of applications and complaints are heard and determined each year. To facilitate an expeditious resolution of the application to reopen, the parties were therefore directed to file their evidence by affidavit.[6] Despite this, Mr Rowley said he does not consent to this matter being decided on the papers.[7]

[4] The Court may hear the application by affidavit evidence.[8] Mr Rowley's affidavit evidence and other filed material do not provide any grounds for reopening. Mr Rowley fully embraced the opportunity to ventilate these issues at the original hearing. Mr Rowley was given considerable latitude both before and during the hearing - despite objections from the Prosecution.

[5] Mr Rowley did not articulate grounds to reopen. Instead, he filed documents rearguing findings of fact and alleging deceit or misleading conduct by the Prosecution and one of its witnesses.

[6] An application to reopen is not a rehearing on the merits. The purpose of reopening a summary criminal proceeding is merely to correct an error or omission apparent from the terms of the earlier order or because of deceit.[9] It is not an opportunity to reventilate issues already canvassed at a hearing and for which findings were made. Nor is it an opportunity to 'second-guess' those findings. Findings were made based on the evidence. No adverse findings of credit were made. There is no evidence of any intent to mislead. The trial was properly conducted.

[7] It is not a reopening ground to accept the evidence of a Prosecution witness. It is not a reopening ground to accept the submissions of the Prosecution. Deceit is a serious allegation requiring commensurate proof.[10] Here, it is a bare allegation. That does not meet the high threshold.

[8] Mr Rowley had the opportunity to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses and to adduce evidence at the hearing and did so. He made oral submissions at length. Allowing him more court time for a groundless application to reopen takes away valuable court time from other more worthy applications. That would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of proceedings.

[9] Mr Rowley's disagreement with the original findings on the evidence is not a ground to reopen the proceeding.

[10] Mr Rowley has been given a fair go. His application to reopen is dismissed.**

[1] Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (Qld), s 20.

[2] Affidavit of Graham Milton Rowley affirmed 17 October 2024; Objections filed by Graham Rowley on 3 December 2024; Grounds to Reopen filed by Graham Rowley on 14 March 2025; Issues To Be Determined filed by Graham Rowley on 5 March 2025.

[3] R v Tommekand [1996] 1 QdR 564, 567.

[4] Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, 217.

[6] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A(4).

[7] Issues To Be Determined filed by Graham Rowley on 5 March 2025.

[8] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A.

[9] Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 147A; Achurch v The Queen [2014] HCA 10; (2014) 253 CLR 141, [47].

[10] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336.