Grigor v Rigby - [2007] NTSC 64

Grigor v Rigby & Anor [2007] NTSC 64
PARTIES:GRIGOR, JAMES ANTHONY

v
RIGBY, KERRY LEANNE
AND

THE MAGISTRATES OF THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:No 114 of 2007 (20729333)
DELIVERED:  14 November 2007
HEARING DATES:  1 November 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – stay of proceedings – hearing of information no commenced within time – whether court can extend time – Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act – whether accused deprived of opportunity to have matter dealt with on complaint due to delay in brining proceedings – application refused
Statutes:
Criminal Code, s 132(2)(b)
Justice Act, s 52
Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act, s 3A
Summary Offences Act, s 47

References:
Minister’s Second Reading Speech, Hansard, Debates, 18 August 2004
Citations:
Followed:
Montreal Street Railway Co v Normandin [1917] AC 170
Referred to:
Accident Compensation Commission v Murphy [1988] VR 444
Ex parte Tasker, Re Hannon & Ors (1971) 1 NSWLR 804
R v Eldridge (2005) 16 NTLR 112
R v Urbanowski [1976] 1 WLR 455
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:S Lee
Defendant:K Sharafeldin
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:Self
Defendant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification: B
Number of pages: 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Grigor v Rigby & Anor [2007] NTSC 64

No. 114 of 2007 (20729333)
BETWEEN:

JAMES ANTHONY GRIGOR

Plaintiff

AND:

KERRY LEANNE RIGBY

First Defendant

AND

THE MAGISTRATES OF THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

Second Defendants

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 14 November 2007)

On 15 February 2007, the defendant Sergeant Rigby of the Northern Territory Police laid an information under the Justices Act against the plaintiff for an alleged breach of s 132(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. That subsection provides that “any person who exposes a child under the age of 16 years to an indecent act by the offender or any other person is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 10 years”.
The case sought to be brought against the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff on 15 July 2006, whilst in a cinema deliberately exposed his penis and masturbated himself in the presence of two female children under the age of 16. The plaintiff brought a motion in this Court to permanently stay the proceedings in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. After hearing submissions I refused to grant the stay and dismissed the motion. I gave short reasons for my decision and said that I would publish full reasons at a later time. These are those reasons.
The plaintiff’s first argument was that, the prosecution, by not instituting proceedings until 15 February 2007, deprived itself of the opportunity of laying a lesser charge under s 47 of the Summary Offences Act, which, it was submitted, was the appropriate charge. That section provides that it is an offence for…

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 Grigor v Rigby

Details

AGLC: Grigor v Rigby [2007] NTSC 64
Case: [2007] NTSC 64
Decision Date: 14 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grigor v Rigby involves an application by the respondent, Mr Grigor, for a stay of criminal proceedings against him, which had not been commenced within the required time under the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the applicant, Mr Rigby, is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The core issue before the court was whether the court could extend the time for the hearing of the information under the statutory provisions and whether the accused had been deprived of the opportunity to have the matter dealt with on complaint due to the delay in bringing the proceedings. The court had to consider the legal framework provided by the Act and assess whether the delay prejudiced the respondent's right to a timely hearing.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, particularly those that pertain to the timeframes for hearing information and the circumstances under which a court may exercise its discretion to extend such timeframes. The respondent argued that the delay in bringing the proceedings resulted in a deprivation of his right to have the matter dealt with on complaint. The court considered the respondent's submissions but found that the statutory provisions did not permit the extension of time in this context. The court held that the respondent had not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the delay, as the fundamental right to a timely hearing was not infringed upon. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions provided adequate safeguards to ensure the respondent's rights were protected.

In conclusion, the court found that the application for a stay of proceedings was without merit. The court held that the statutory provisions did not allow for the extension of the time for hearing the information and that the respondent had not been deprived of his right to a timely hearing. The application was therefore refused, and the court made no orders extending the time for the hearing of the information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.