Ebatarinja v Deland

Case [1998] HCA 62


HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

ROLAND EBATARINJA  FIRST APPELLANT

CONLEY EBATARINJA  SECOND APPELLANT

AND

CATHY DELAND SM  FIRST RESPONDENT

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE  SECOND RESPONDENT

REX WILD QC  THIRD RESPONDENT

Ebatarinja v Deland (D8-1998) [1998] HCA 62
30 September 1998

ORDER

  1. Appeal allowed with costs.

  1. Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory of Australia and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs and that prohibition issue directed to the first respondent prohibiting the further hearing of committal proceedings against the first appellant.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Representation:

D J Ross QC with B Fox for the appellants (instructed by Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Incorporated)

2.

R S L Wild QC with A M Fraser for the second respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Territory))

No appearance for the first and third respondents

Notice:  This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Ebatarinja v Deland

Criminal procedure – Committal proceedings – Jurisdiction of Magistrate to hear committal proceedings – Proceedings to be conducted "in the presence or hearing of the defendant" – Whether essential that defendant understand and follow the proceedings – Deaf, mute and illiterate defendant – Whether an order for prohibition should be made.

Criminal procedure – Committal proceedings – Requirement in Justices Act (NT), ss 110 and 111 that Magistrate address defendant in certain terms – Whether mandatory or directory.

Criminal procedure – Committal proceedings against defendant not possible – Whether Crown may proceed by way of ex officio indictment.

Words and phrases – "in the presence or hearing of the defendant".

Justices Act (NT), ss 106, 110, 111.

Kunnath v The State [1993] 1 WLR 1315; [1993] 4 All ER 30, considered.

  1. GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ.   The question in this appeal is whether committal proceedings pending against the first appellant, Roland Ebatarinja, ("the appellant") should be prohibited from further proceeding on the ground that he does not know with what he is charged, is unable to follow the proceedings before the Magistrate and is unable to communicate with those lawyers representing him.

  2. The appellant stands charged with three indictable offences, the chief of which is that on 16 February 1995 he murdered Gregory Jabaltjari Long, contrary to the Criminal Code (NT), s 162. The prosecution alleges that, on 16 February 1995, the appellant and two other persons went to a house in an area known as Larapinta Valley Camp where the appellant embraced a female in an affectionate manner. Her husband, Mr Long, became upset and punched the appellant in the head. The appellant left the area but returned shortly after with a pocket-knife with which he attacked Mr Long, stabbing him three times. Mr Long died five days later on 21 February 1995.

  3. The appellant is a deaf mute Aborigine…

Continue reading Ebatarinja v Deland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ebatarinja v Deland [1998] HCA 62
Case
[1998] HCA 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Ebatarinja concerning committal proceedings initiated against him. The central dispute revolved around the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to conduct these proceedings, given that Ebatarinja was deaf, mute, and illiterate, raising questions about his ability to understand and follow the proceedings. The proceedings were challenged on the basis that they were not conducted "in the presence or hearing of the defendant" in a meaningful sense, and the Court was asked to consider whether a writ of prohibition should be issued to halt the committal process.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the statutory requirement that committal proceedings be conducted "in the presence or hearing of the defendant" necessitated that the defendant understand and follow the proceedings. Further, the Court had to determine whether the provisions of sections 110 and 111 of the Justices Act 1848 (NT), which mandate specific addresses by the Magistrate to the defendant, were mandatory or merely directory. Finally, the Court considered whether, if committal proceedings were not possible, the Crown could proceed by way of an ex officio indictment.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Northern Territory Court of Appeal. The Court ordered that prohibition issue, directing the Magistrate to cease further hearing of the committal proceedings against Ebatarinja. This outcome was based on the determination that the committal proceedings, as conducted, failed to meet the fundamental requirements of fairness and statutory compliance, particularly in light of the defendant's disabilities and the inability to ensure he could meaningfully participate in or understand the process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Appeal allowed with costs.

2.

Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory of Australia and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed with costs and that prohibition issue directed to the first respondent prohibiting the further hearing of committal proceedings against the first appellant.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HUGH, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HUGH, GUMMOW, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ

Full text does not contain this section.