Act Against Tumultuous Petitioning 1661 (13 Car 2, st 1, c 5); Bill of Rights 1688, article 5, article 9; Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp); Criminal Code (NT), s 1, s 31, s 34, s 61, s 61(a); Interpretation Act, s 59; Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992, s 3(3), s 5, s 6, s 25, s 26; Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth), Part III Division I (ss 6-12); Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16; Seditious Meetings Act 1817 (Imp) (Geo 3, cap XIX s 23); Sentencing Act (NT), s 40(6); Sources of Law Act 1985, s 2, s 3; Statute of Westminster 1931 (Imp), s 2(1);
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth); Strodes Act 1512 (4 Henry VIII, c 8); The Constitution of Australia, s 122

A C Castles, An Australian Legal History; Sydney, Law Book Company, 1982; Enid Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege, Sydney, Federation Press, 2003; Limon and McKay (eds), Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd ed, London, Butterworths, 1997; McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 2nd ed, Wellington New Zealand, GP Publications, 1994; Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 9th ed, Canberra, Department of the Senate, 1999; Pettifer (ed), House of Representatives Practice, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981; Richard L Perry and John C Cooper, Sources of Our Liberties, Alabama, Legal Classics Library edition, 1990; Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol 6, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1937

R v Bernasconi (1915) 19 CLR 629; R v Wright; ex parte Klar (1971) 1 SASR 103; Wake and Anor v NTA and Anor (1996) 5 NTLR 170; (1996) 109 NTR 1; applied

The Queen v Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157; distinguished

Bradlaugh v Gossett (1883-1884) 12 QBD 271; followed

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; Erglis v Buckley (2004) 2 Qd R 599; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) 189 CLR 520; Laurance v Katter (2000) 1 Qd R 147; (1996) 141 ALR 447; Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321; R v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293; Rowley v O’Chee (2000) 1 Qd R 207; (1997) 150 ALR 199; Johnson v Johnson (2000)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AM v The Queen

Details

AGLC: AM v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 18
Case: [2006] NTCCA 18
Decision Date: 13 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for an offence under section 192 of the Northern Territory Criminal Code. The appellant, AM, sought to appeal against this conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory was tasked with determining the merits of this appeal.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, whether the verdict was unreasonable, and whether there had been an error in the exclusion of certain evidence during the trial. The Court also considered the potential for duplicity in the indictment.

The Court reasoned that while inconsistent verdicts can, in some circumstances, lead to an appeal being allowed, the verdicts in this instance were not so inherently contradictory as to render them unreasonable. However, the Court found that certain evidence had been incorrectly excluded, which had a material impact on the fairness of the trial. This error, coupled with concerns about the indictment's duplicity, led the Court to conclude that the conviction could not stand. The Court applied principles relating to the assessment of inconsistent verdicts and the impact of evidentiary errors on the safety of a conviction, drawing on established High Court authority.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.

Orders