Fox v Coates - [2010] NTSC 46

Fox v Coates [2010] NTSC 46
PARTIES:FOX, Bradley Peter

v
COATES, Richard James

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:20934430, 21023470
DELIVERED:  30 September 2010
HEARING DATES:  15 July 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  BLOKLAND J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- -POLICE - - RIGHTS, POWERS AND DUTIES - - IMMUNITY FROM SUIT - - APPLICATION AND OPERATION OF IMMUNITY - - Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) - - Scope of immunity from criminal liability under s 164 of Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) - - Police can rely on the immunity if they have, in good faith, wrongly or mistakenly acted beyond their powers.

JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -- a Magistrate hearing a committal proceeding is sitting as a justice and not the Court of Summary Jurisdiction - - a Justices Appeal cannot be brought from a ruling at committal - - Justices Appeal dismissed.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-- PREROGATIVE WRITS AND ORDERS - - Relief in the nature of orders for Certiorari and Prohibition are granted - - the decision of the learned Magistrate dismissing the application to apply the immunity at the commencement of committal proceedings is quashed and the committal court constituted by a magistrate sitting as a Justice is prohibited from proceeding further with the committal hearing.
Adult Guardianship Act (NT)

Criminal Code (NT) ss 23, 26, 336(2)
Justices Act (NT) s 163
Mental Health Act (Vic) s 103

Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) ss 4, 33, 34, 163, 164, 165
Police Administration Act (NT)

Public Sector Employment and Management Act (NT)
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] 227 CLR 166
Little v The Commonwealth (1947) 75 CLR 94 108
Marshall v Watson [1972] 124 CLR 640

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1998] 194 CLR 355
R v Whittington (2006) 17 NTLR 235
R v Whittington No. 2 (2006) 19 NTLR 83
Spooner v Juddow [1820] 18 ER 734

Tcherna v Garner (1999) 154 FLR 243
Wanambi v Edwards [2010] NTSC 43
Webster v Lampard [1993] 177 CLR 598

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:Michael Abbott QC; Peter Elliot
Defendant:Rex Wild QC
Solicitors:
Applicant:Ward Keller
Defendant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:   A
Judgment ID Number:  BLO1006
Number of pages:  39

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Fox v Coates [2010] NTSC 46
No. 20934430, 21023470
BETWEEN:

BRADLEY PETER FOX

Applicant

AND:

RICHARD JAMES COATES

Defendant

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 30 September 2010)
Introduction

Bradley Peter Fox (the Applicant) seeks to appeal the decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate allowing committal proceedings against him to continue in circumstances where he asserts a statutory immunity protects him from prosecution. Alternatively, relief is sought by way of orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition quashing the decision of the learned Magistrate on the same or similar grounds and prohibiting the conduct of further proceedings against him. Senior Counsel who appear in the matter seek…

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 Fox v Coates

Details

AGLC: Fox v Coates [2010] NTSC 46
Case: [2010] NTSC 46
Decision Date: 30 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fox v Coates, the Applicant, a police officer, sought to challenge the decision of the Respondent, who was acting on behalf of Mr Plasto-Lehner, in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The case centred on whether the Applicant had exceeded his powers under the Mental Health and Related Services Act 1998 (NT) (MHRSA) when he apprehended and detained Mr Plasto-Lehner, who was suspected of being mentally ill. The Respondent argued that the Applicant had no authority to prevent Mr Plasto-Lehner from leaving the hospital, while the Applicant contended that he acted within his powers under the MHRSA.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Applicant had the authority to apprehend and detain Mr Plasto-Lehner under the MHRSA, and whether he had acted with reasonable care and in good faith. The court was also required to determine whether the Applicant's actions were within the scope of his powers as outlined in the MHRSA, and whether the Applicant had exceeded his authority by preventing Mr Plasto-Lehner from leaving the hospital. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Applicant's actions were justified under the circumstances and whether the benefit of the immunity provided under s 164 MHRSA could be applied in this case.

The court found that the Applicant had acted within his powers under the MHRSA and had done so with reasonable care and in good faith. The court held that the Applicant's actions were justified under the circumstances, and that he had not exceeded his authority by preventing Mr Plasto-Lehner from leaving the hospital. The court also found that the benefit of the immunity provided under s 164 MHRSA could be applied in this case, as the Applicant had acted within his powers and had not acted recklessly or negligently. As a result, the Applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Respondent was upheld.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory found that the Applicant had acted within his powers under the MHRSA and had not exceeded his authority by preventing Mr Plasto-Lehner from leaving the hospital. The court held that the Applicant had acted with reasonable care and in good faith, and that the benefit of the immunity provided under s 164 MHRSA could be applied in this case. The decision of the Respondent was therefore upheld, and the Applicant's appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Of primary relevance to the circumstances of this case is the principle that the benefit of the s 164 MHRSA immunity may be applied notwithstanding the Applicant may have gone beyond his powers provided there is good faith, and that he has acted with “reasonable care.” This is not a case concerned with reliance on a “document” as in Marshall v Watson, but in my view relevantly engages “authority” under the MHRSA. That approach accords with the natural meaning of the section, that is “authority”, “apparently given or made in accordance with this Act.”Discussion of the Relevant Provisions of the MHRSA and Application to the agreed facts. Section 163[43] MHRSA relevantly provides police may apprehend a person and take the person to a medical practitioner, for an assessment under s 33 MHRSA, if police believe on reasonable grounds the person may be mentally ill or mentally disturbed, the person has attempted suicide, self harm or harm of another person in the preceding 48 hours, (or is about to do the same) and it is necessary to apprehend the person or it is not practical to seek relevant medical assistance,. Section 33 MHRSA directs an authorised psychiatrist or designated health practitioner to assess and determine whether a person is in need of treatment as soon as practicable. It was not in dispute the Applicant was on duty as a serving member of the Northern Territory police. It was not in dispute the Applicant and other police officers validly exercised their powers under s 163 MHRSA to apprehend Mr Plasto-Lehner and take him to RDH where he was admitted to hospital by the triage nurse.[44] There was nothing in the facts to suggest police, (including the Applicant), did not believe they were acting within power during the period they were waiting with Mr Plasto-Lehner in the Oleander Room or that they did not believe their powers extended to stopping him from leaving the hospital. The Respondent does not assert to the contrary, however, it is the Respondent’s case[45] the Applicant had no power to prevent Mr Plasto-Lehner from leaving the hospital at the relevant time. It is the Respondent’s case and not in dispute that Dr Cromarty conducted a preliminary assessment of Mr Plasto-Lehner. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant Dr Cromarty claimed to be acting pursuant to s 33(1) MHRSA and was apparently seeing Mr Plasto-Lehner with a view to assessing and determining whether he was in need of treatment. Subsequently, it is submitted Dr Cromarty has claimed to have formed the view that Mr Plasto-Lehner fulfilled the criteria for involuntary admission into hospital on the grounds of mental illness and made a recommendation for a psychiatric examination of him to take place.[46] The use of the word (“claimed”) in submissions on behalf of the applicant in reference to the proposed evidence indicates there may be some dispute about what Dr Cromarty has said in relation to the legal basis of her decisions, however a consideration of the facts at this stage means I am obliged to accept facts taking the Respondent’s case at its highest. No contrary facts concerning the exercise of Dr Cromarty’s powers are before this Court or the Court below. For the purposes of these proceedings, I accept Dr Cromarty conducted an assessment pursuant to s 33 MHRSA.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.