Dixon v Namatjira - [2005] NTSC 31

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List] Dixon v Namatjira [2005] NTSC 31

PARTIES: DIXON, Garnet Alan

v

NAMATJIRA, Floyd

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 7 of 2005 (20500012)

DELIVERED: 17 June 2005

HEARING DATES: 15 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: C. Roberts
Respondent: M. O’Reilly

Solicitors:
Appellant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0513
Number of pages: 9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Dixon v Namatjira [2005] NTSC 31
No JA 7 of 2005 (20500012)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against sentence handed down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs

BETWEEN:

DIXON, Garnet Alan
Appellant

AND:

NAMATJIRA, Floyd
Respondent

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 17 June 2005)

[1] This is a Crown appeal against sentence.
[2] On 6 January 2005 the respondent was sentenced in relation to an assault upon his wife committed on 31 December 2004 at the Hidden Valley Camp in Alice Springs. The circumstances of the offending were that the respondent saw his wife dancing with her female cousin and became jealous. He approached her and punched her several times in the face, causing a cut to her bottom lip. Other people at the house attempted to stop the respondent from hitting the victim but were unsuccessful.
[3] The respondent then dragged his victim by the hair and body from the house towards the Alice Springs Town Centre. At one stage he forced her to pick up a large rock which he then took from her. He struck her with the rock to the left side of her face causing the skin to be ripped from her cheek. As he continued to drag her towards the town centre she pleaded with him to let her go. He grabbed her by the throat with his left hand and began to strangle her. He then took her right ear between his teeth and bit off the top part of the ear. The portion of the ear has not been found and she has, as a consequence, suffered permanent disfigurement. The respondent dragged his victim to the lawns near the Royal Flying Doctor Service where she managed to break free and flag down a passing police vehicle. The respondent fled but was subsequently apprehended.
[4] The learned sentencing magistrate was advised that the respondent and his victim had been married for six years and had one son. That child was in the care of the Department of Family and Community Services. The relationship between the respondent and his wife had been poor for some years and was marred by violence on both sides and by the excessive consumption of alcohol. Her Worship was informed that the victim had…

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 Dixon v Namatjira

Details

AGLC: Dixon v Namatjira [2005] NTSC 031
Case: [2005] NTSC 31
Decision Date: 17 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Dixon v Namatjira, heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed by a lower court on Floyd Namatjira for a serious assault on his wife. The events of 31 December 2004 saw Namatjira, after becoming jealous of his wife's interaction with her female cousin, assault her in a violent manner, dragging her by her hair and body, striking her with a rock, and biting off part of her ear, leading to permanent disfigurement. The couple had a history of mutual violence, alcohol abuse, and prior convictions. The respondent's criminal history included multiple serious assaults on his wife, with this incident being the third significant assault and a breach of a suspended sentence.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing magistrate was manifestly inadequate. The court applied the principles of Crown appeals, which require the Crown to demonstrate that the sentence was not just arguably inadequate but so obviously inadequate that it was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate due to the severity of the assault, the respondent's history of violence, and the failure of the parole mechanism designed for rehabilitation. The court also noted the excessive discount provided for the respondent's early guilty plea.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, considering the gravity of the offence and the respondent's history of violence. However, given that the respondent had already served the initial four-month sentence and was serving a restored sentence, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not impose a new sentence, as it would not extend the time the respondent was likely to serve in custody.

Orders