Eupene v Hales

[2000] NTCA 16

Eupene v Hales [2000] NTCA 16

PARTIES:EUPENE, Samuel

v

HALES, Peter William

TITLE OF COURT:  FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:JA 80 of 1999

DELIVERED:  14 December 2000

HEARING DATES:  3 March and 26 May 2000

JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & THOMAS JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – costs – miscarriage of proceedings in lower court – whether to make an order for costs.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:J Tippett

Respondent:  Rex Wild QC and J Blokland

Solicitors:

Appellant:De Silva Hebron

Respondent:  DPP

Judgment category classification:      B

Judgment ID Number:  mar20031

Number of pages:  2

Mar20031

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

Eupene v Hales [2000] NTCA 16
No. JA 80 of 1999

BETWEEN:

SAMUEL EUPENE

Appellant

AND:

PETER WILLIAM HALES

Respondent

CORAM:    MARTIN CJ, ANGEL & THOMAS JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 14 December 2000)

THE COURT:

1. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against a conviction in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The nub of the appeal lay in whether the offence in respect of which he was found guilty was “trivial in nature” for the purposes of s 78A(6B) and s 78A(6C) of the Sentencing Act. The matter was referred to the Full Court. The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed and the matter remitted to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for rehearing. The basis for making those orders did not rest upon the merits of the appeal, but upon considerations raised by the Court. Both parties urged the Court not to proceed as it did.

1. The appellant seeks an order for costs upon the basis that he succeeded.  That is so, in so far as the conviction was set aside, but not so in so far as the merits of his grounds of appeal were concerned.  Justice Angel and Justice Thomas both expressed their opinion as to what they regarded as being the meaning of “trivial in nature”, but it does not appear that the views expressed by them extended to whether the offence committed by the appellant fell within those words.

2. Prima facie a successful party is entitled to an order for costs.  However, the appellant was not successful.  He opposed the course which the Court indicated it was considering and which it implemented by majority.

3. We would make no order as to costs.  Both parties must bear the expense of what the majority of this Court determined was a miscarriage of the proceedings in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

   ----------------------------------------------------------