Cumaiyi v Taylor - [2006] NTSC 72

Cumaiyi v Taylor [2006] NTSC 72
PARTIES:CUMAIYI, Matthew
v

TAYLOR, Shane Michael

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA 19/2006 (20612496)
DELIVERED:  22 September 2006
HEARING DATES:  18 September 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN AJ
ON APPEAL:  Police v Matthew Cumaiyi

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:C McAlister
Respondent:  A Nobbs
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  MBF0601
Number of pages:  5

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Cumaiyi v Taylor [2006] NTSC 72
No. JA19/2006 (20612496)

BETWEEN:
CUMAIYI, Matthew

Plaintiff
AND:
TAYLOR, Shane Michael

Defendant

CORAM: MARTIN AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 22 September 2006)
Appeal against conviction and sentence

The appellant was charged on complaint for that on 6 May 2006 at Wadeye he:
1. unlawfully possessed cannabis.
2.behaved in a disorderly manner in a public place, namely, Port Keats Airport carpark, (s 47(a) Summary Offences Act.
3.behaved in a disorderly manner in a police station, namely the Port Keats Police Station.
4.resisted a member of the Police Force in the execution of his duty.
Before the learned magistrate on 8 May, he pleaded guilty to each of the first two charges and the other two were withdrawn. The appellant now seeks to have his conviction upon that plea set aside.
The facts put to his Honour were as follows:
“During the early hours of 6 May 2006 Matthew Cumaiyi was the defendant in the matter and consumed nine cans of Melbourne Bitter beer in the vicinity of the Darwin Airport becoming intoxicated. At midday the defendant attended Murin Air where he met up with other residents of Port Keats. The defendant was given a small amount – 2 grams of cannabis inside a clipseal bag that was wrapped in tape and tissue paper from an unknown person which he placed in his right jeans pocket.
At 12:30 pm the defendant boarded a charter aircraft that … flew to Port Keats. Upon arrival at 1:30 pm in Port Keats the defendant alighted from the aircraft. At this time the police were waiting at the aircraft as the result of information received that intoxicated males were returning.
As the defendant walked across the carpark he yelled out, ‘Evil, fuck you mob, evil is back’, directing his words towards opposing gang members that were near the airport hanger. The defendant was arrested for disorderly behaviour and conveyed to the police station. Inside the police station the defendant started yelling at police, ‘We’re going to get you, both of you, all us boys, the evil mob.’ At this time the defendant was pointing at both members of police attempting to search the defendant as he would not empty the contents of his pockets.
At the time the defendant became agitated and struggled with members. The defendant would not comply with members request to empty his pockets. Members has to use…

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 Cumaiyi v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Cumaiyi v Taylor [2006] NTSC 72
Case: [2006] NTSC 72
Decision Date: 22 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Cumaiyi appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, presided over by Martin AJ. Cumaiyi had been found guilty of possessing cannabis and behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place and a police station, and resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The charges of disorderly behaviour were based on Cumaiyi's alleged verbal outbursts directed at opposing gang members near Port Keats Airport and in the Port Keats Police Station. Cumaiyi argued that his conviction should be set aside as the evidence did not sufficiently prove the elements of the disorderly behaviour charges.

The court examined whether the evidence met the legal criteria for proving disorderly behaviour in a public place, which required the behaviour to be within the hearing of any person in that public place. The court found that there was no evidence to show that the opposing gang members had actually heard Cumaiyi's alleged outbursts. Therefore, the essential element of the offence—that the disorderly behaviour must be within the hearing of a person in a public place—was not satisfied. The court concluded that on the admitted facts, the disorderly behaviour charges could not be proved, and thus, the conviction was set aside.

Martin AJ ruled that the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside, but found it inappropriate to refer the case back to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for retrial. This decision highlights the necessity for evidence to meet the specific legal criteria for disorderly behaviour charges and underscores the cautious approach taken by courts in reviewing convictions based on guilty pleas.

Orders