Bonsell v DCA - [2004] NTSC 64

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2004 List] Bonsell & Anor v DCA [2004] NTSC 64

PARTIES: BONSELL, Jennifer &
BONSELL, Peter

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT AUTHORITY

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FILE NO: 20207087 & 20207079 (JA 31 & 32 of 2004)

DELIVERED: 8 December 2004

HEARING DATES: 13, 14 & 15 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF: MILDREN J

CATCHWORDS:

PLANNING – development consent – consent authority required to give reasons – whether consent authority failed to give reasons – whether consent given invalid.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – particulars of charge – particulars incorrect – whether accused wrongly convicted.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – unrepresented defendants to complaints – whether given opportunity to submit no case to answer.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Justices’ appeal – whether court wrongly granted adjournment of trial – no miscarriage of justice.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – matters brought on complaint – 6 months time bar – whether court should determine time bar as a preliminary question before taking a plea.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – matters brought on complaint – unrepresented defendants – whether magistrate conducted fair hearing.
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – Lawyers – whether prosecutor coached witnesses.
EVIDENCE – admissions and declarations – whether unlawfully obtained – whether duty to administer caution – whether voluntary.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – whether finds of guilt unsafe or unsatisfactory.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal against sentence – whether error shown.
APPEAL – appellants unrepresented – whether magistrate biased – whether magistrate failed to consider appellants’ personal circumstances.
Criminal Code, s 411(1)
Evidence Act, s 26L
Justices Act, s 52, s 163
Planning Act, s 3, s 44, s 46, s 53, s 54, s 75(3)(a), s 111(1), s 112, s 114(1)(b)
Cross on Evidence, loose leaf, par 33690
The Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice of the Law Society of the Northern Territory, r 17.28 and r 17.29
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 492; MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512 at 534; Project Blue Sky Inc & Others v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, 153 ALR 490; Ross v Munns (unreported, 11 June 1998 per Thomas, Bailey and Priestley JJ); applied
JK v Waldron (1998) 93 FLR 451 at 255; followed
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; R v Dixon (1992) 28 NSWLR 215; Re Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Palme (2003) 201 ALR 327; referred to
REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: M. Grove

Solicitors:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ward Keller

Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Bonsell & Anor v DCA [2004] NTSC 64
No. 20207087 & 20207079 (JA 31 & 32 of 2004)

BETWEEN:

BONSELL, Jennifer &
BONSELL, Peter
Appellants

AND:

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT AUTHORITY

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 Bonsell v DCA

Details

AGLC: Bonsell v DCA [2004] NTSC 064
Case: [2004] NTSC 64
Decision Date: 08/12/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bonsell v DCA is a multifaceted case heard by the court involving a dispute over the granting of development consent and the validity of criminal proceedings. The primary issue revolves around whether the consent authority adequately provided reasons for its decision, potentially rendering the consent invalid. Additionally, the case scrutinises the correctness of particulars in a criminal charge and whether these errors led to a wrongful conviction. It also examines the fairness of the criminal proceedings, including the opportunity given to unrepresented defendants to submit a no case to answer plea.

The court delved into the necessity for the consent authority to provide reasons for its decision, concluding that the lack of reasons did not invalidate the consent, provided the decision-making process was not arbitrary. It further evaluated the accuracy of the particulars in the criminal charge, finding discrepancies but determining they did not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. The court also addressed the fairness of the proceedings for unrepresented defendants, ensuring that each defendant was given a fair opportunity to present their case.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for authorities to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. It found no miscarriage of justice in the granting of development consent and upheld the validity of the criminal proceedings despite procedural errors. The court also confirmed that the particulars of the charge, although incorrect, did not lead to an unsafe or unsatisfactory outcome. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the findings of guilt were upheld as safe and satisfactory.

The final orders of the court upheld the consent granted by the authority, affirmed the validity of the criminal proceedings, and dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence. The court also directed that the consent authority should provide more comprehensive reasons in future decisions.

Orders