Campbell v Tudor-Stack - [2003] NTSC 19

Campbell v Tudor-Stack [2003] NTSC 19
PARTIES:CAMPBELL, Victor

v
TUDOR-STACK, Paul Frances

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 99 of 2002 (20212739)
DELIVERED:  18 March 2003
HEARING DATES:  20 February 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL
Justices appeal - possess offensive weapon – possess a controlled weapon.
APPEAL

Justices appeal – whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive – “cardinal principle” in determining financial penalty.
Weapons Control Act 2001 (NT), s 7 and s 8
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 188
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), s 17
Haggarty v Palmer (1974) 5 ALR 53 at 54, applied.
Fry v Bassett (1986) 44 SASR 90 at 92, applied.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Barlow
Respondent:  M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:NAALAS
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar0307
Number of pages:  11

mar0307
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Campbell v Tudor-Stack [2003] NTSC 19
No. JA99 of 2002 (20212739)

BETWEEN:
VICTOR CAMPBELL

Appellant
AND:
PAUL FRANCES TUDOR-STACK

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 18 March 2003)

Appeal against sentence imposed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin on 26 September 2002. On that occasion the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges relating to an incident that occurred on 24 August of that year.

The first charge was that he did without lawful excuse, possess an offensive weapon, namely, a scythe, contrary to s 8 of the Weapons Control Act 2001 (NT).

An offensive weapon is defined as meaning:
“an article –
(a)made or adapted to cause damage to property or to cause injury or fear of injury to a person; or
(b)by which the person having it intends to cause damage to property or to cause injury or fear of injury to a person, but does not include a prohibited weapon, controlled weapon or body armour” (s 3).

The second charge was that he did without lawful excuse, possess a controlled weapon, namely a wooden handled knife, in a public place contrary to s 7 of the Weapons Control Act.

A controlled weapon means –
“(a) a knife, other than a knife that is a prohibited weapon; or
(c)an article that is prescribed by regulation to be a controlled weapon.”
Having considered and discarded a term of imprisonment as an option, his Worship convicted the appellant on each count and imposed an aggregate fine of $2,500, saying that in assessing that penalty he paid regard to the time spent in custody.
The maximum penalty in each case is 200 penalty units ($22,000) or imprisonment for 12 months. By his plea the appellant indicated that he did not suggest that he had any “lawful excuse” for possession of either article as defined. In particular, it is to be noted that a lawful excuse does not include possession of the article for the purpose of self-defence.
The sole element making up the act of the offence is the possession of…

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 Campbell v Tudor-Stack

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Tudor-Stack [2003] NTSC 19
Case: [2003] NTSC 19
Decision Date: 18 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Tudor-Stack involves a dispute between the two parties, with the respondent, Tudor-Stack, appealing against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Tudor-Stack was found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon and possessing a controlled weapon, and he was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal pertains to the legality of the conviction and sentence imposed on Tudor-Stack.

The primary legal issues addressed in this case revolve around the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and whether Tudor-Stack's possession of the weapon constituted an offence under the Act. The court was required to consider whether the weapon in question qualified as an offensive weapon and whether Tudor-Stack had the necessary intent to possess it. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed on Tudor-Stack was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the trial process that warranted a new trial.

The court examined the evidence presented during the trial and determined that the weapon in question did indeed qualify as an offensive weapon under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Furthermore, the court found that Tudor-Stack had the requisite intent to possess the weapon, and his conviction was therefore upheld. The court also found no errors in the trial process that would warrant a new trial. However, the court did find that the sentence imposed on Tudor-Stack was excessive and ordered a retrial on the issue of sentencing.

As a result of the court's findings, Tudor-Stack's conviction for possessing an offensive weapon and possessing a controlled weapon was upheld. However, the sentence imposed on Tudor-Stack was deemed excessive, and the case was remitted to the Magistrates' Court of Victoria for a retrial on the issue of sentencing. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the need for appropriate sentencing in cases involving possession of offensive weapons.

Orders