Dalton v The King

Case [2025] NTSC 29

CITATION:Dalton v The King [2025] NTSC 29

PARTIES:DALTON, John

v

THE KING

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction

FILE NO:LCA 28 of 2024 (22332948)

DELIVERED:  15 May 2025

HEARING DATE:  9 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF:  Kelly J

CATCHWORDS:

Local Court Appeal – failure to give Liberato direction - significant possibility that the trial judge approached this case as essentially involving a choice between prosecution and defence evidence – substantial miscarriage of justice – appeal allowed

Local Court Appeal – appeal against finding of guilt – whether verdict unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – not a case in which the trial judge must (as distinct from might) have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant – appeal dismissed

Local Court Appeal – verdict of guilty set aside – matter remitted to a differently constituted Local Court for rehearing

Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 188(2)

Brawn v The King [2025] HCA 20; FN v The Queen [2021] NTCCA 5; Foster v The King [2023] NTCCA 5; GAX v The Queen [2017] HCA 25; 344 ALR 489; Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559; Lynch v The Queen [2020] NTCCA 6; M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487; Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12; 268 CLR 123; SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400; Tyrell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 52, referred to

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:T Clelland

Respondent:  D Warner Collins

Solicitors:

Appellant:Maleys

Respondent:  Office of the Director for Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  Kel2508

Number of pages:  20

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

Dalton v The King [2025] NTSC 29

No. LCA 28 of 2024 (22332948)

BETWEEN:

JOHN DALTON

Appellant

AND:

THE KING

Respondent

CORAM:    KELLY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 May 2025)

Introduction

  1. On 23 October 2024, the appellant, John Dalton (“Mr Dalton”) was found guilty in the Local Court at Katherine of one count of unlawful assault in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 188(2) of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) (“Criminal Code”).  He has appealed against that finding of guilt on the following grounds.

    (1)A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the Local Court impermissibly admitted evidence, in the evidence-in-chief of Mr Almeiaha, that bolstered the credibility of [the complainant] Mr Panapiti.

    (2)A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the Local Court failed to direct themselves as per Liberato v The Queen.[1]

    (3)A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because the Local Court erred in concluding that the CCTV footage from within the taxi would not have assisted the Court in its deliberation.

    (4)The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

  2. At the hearing of…

Continue reading Dalton v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dalton v The King [2025] NTSC 29
Case
[2025] NTSC 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dalton appealed against his conviction for sexual offences, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice due to an error in the trial.

The High Court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, making its own independent assessment of the whole evidence. The court held that where there is evidence upon which a jury might convict, it is dangerous to allow the verdict of guilty to stand if there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The court must weigh any competing evidence that might tend against the verdict reached by the jury. In this case, the court concluded that there was evidence to support the jury's verdict, and the jury had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The court held that the appeal on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence must be dismissed.

The High Court held that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice due to an error in the trial. The court held that the error in the trial did not realistically affect the jury's reasoning to a verdict of guilty. The court held that the appeal on this ground must be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

That being so, it must be the case that such error could realistically have affected his Honour’s reasoning to a verdict of guilty. There has been a substantial miscarriage of justice and this ground of appeal must be allowed.Ground 4: the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence The principles applying to an appeal on the ground that a verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence were summarized by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Foster v The King:[11]Unreasonable verdictThe principles governing appeals on this ground of appeal were recently reviewed by this Court in Lynch v The Queen[12] and FN v The Queen[13], and we largely repeat those reviews for ease of reference. In M v The Queen, the High Court stated:[14]Where a court of criminal appeal sets aside a verdict on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, it frequently does so expressing its conclusion in terms of a verdict which is unsafe or unsatisfactory. Other terms may be used such as “unjust or unsafe” or “dangerous or unsafe”. In reaching such a conclusion, the court does not consider as a question of law whether there is evidence to support the verdict. Questions of law are separately dealt with by s 6(1). The question is one of fact which the court must decide by making its own independent assessment of the evidence and determining whether, notwithstanding that there is evidence upon which a jury might convict, “none the less it would be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty to stand”. …Where, notwithstanding that as a matter of law there is evidence to sustain a verdict, a court of criminal appeal is asked to conclude that the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory, the question which the court must ask itself is whether it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. But in answering that question the court must not disregard or discount either the consideration that the jury is the body entrusted with the primary responsibility of determining guilt or innocence, or the consideration that the jury has had the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses. On the contrary, the court must pay full regard to those considerations.The test in M v The Queen has been affirmed in subsequent decisions of the High Court.[15] An appeal of this kind requires an appellate court to make its own independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, and to determine whether, having regard to any advantages the jury had, it holds a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant. The task of conducting an independent assessment of the evidence requires an appellate court to weigh any competing evidence that might tend against the verdict reached by the jury.[16]In considering convictions for sexual offences, where it may be assumed that the jury assessed the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, there may be countervailing evidence which nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to guilt. The High Court has explained the process in the following terms:[17] The court examines the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment – either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in the light of other evidence – the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt. In terms of resolving any doubt held by an appellate court, the majority in M v The Queen said:[18]In most cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which a jury ought also to have experienced. It is only where a jury’s advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving a doubt experienced by a court of criminal appeal that the court may conclude that no miscarriage of justice occurred.In Libke v The Queen, Hayne J expressed the process of reasoning as follows (footnotes omitted):[19]But the question for an appellate court is whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is to say whether the jury must, as distinct from might, have entertained a doubt about the appellant’s guilt.This formulation does not impose a stricter test than was laid down in M v The Queen. In Pell v The Queen, the High Court confirmed that the statement from Libke extracted above was consistent with what was said by the majority in M v The Queen.[20]

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.