Heath v Rout and Heath v Pearce - [2018] NTSC 17

CITATION:Heath v Rout and Heath v Pearce [2018]
NTSC 17

PARTIES:HEATH, Andrew

v
ROUT, Tahnieerae and
PEARCE, Kerry Anne

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:LCA 24 of 17 (21705220) and LCA 23 of 17 (21705224)
DELIVERED:  14 March 2018
HEARING DATE:  12 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY AJ
APPEAL FROM:  Local Court
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Liquor offences – bringing liquor into an Alcohol Protected Area – whether s 86 defence available to offences under s 75B of Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012) (Cth)
Criminal Code Part 11AA
Emergency Response Act s 12
Liquor Act (NT) s 75, s 75(1)(a), s 75B (1), s 86
Liquor Regulations
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act s 4(3)
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012) (Cth) s 8, s 9, Division 1AA of Part V111
Rockman v Smallridge [2012] NTSC 56; Rosas v Cahill [2013] NTSC 65; Turley v Byrne [2009] NTSC 22, referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:R Murphy
Respondent:  S Lapinski
Solicitors:
Appellant:Murphy and Associates
Respondent:  North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril1802
Number of pages:  11

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Heath v Rout and Heath v Pearce [2018] NTSC 17
No. LCA 24 of 17 (21705220) and LCA 23 of 17 (21705224)

BETWEEN:
ANDREW HEATH

Appellant
AND:
TAHNIEERAE ROUT
KERRY ANNE PEARCE

Respondents

CORAM: RILEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
`
(Delivered 14 March 2018)

The respondents were jointly charged with the offence of bringing alcohol into an Alcohol Protected Area contrary to s 75B(1) of the Liquor Act (NT) read with s 8 of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012) (Cth) (SFNT Act). Following a hearing before a Local Court Judge the charges against each respondent were dismissed.
The appellant appeals against the dismissal on two grounds:
(a)the learned Local Court Judge erred in holding that s 86 of the Liquor Act was a defence to a charge under s 75B(1) of the Liquor Act, and
(b)the learned Local Court Judge erred in holding that the mental element of the charge under s 75B(1) of the Liquor Act had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In written reasons for decision the Local Court Judge found that the respondents had purchased alcohol from the Todd Tavern Bottle Shop intending to take it to the home of Ms Rout in the suburb of Gillen. As part of the journey they drove to House 14 Ulpaya Road, Charles Creek Camp in order to pick up the children of Ms Rout and take them to her home in Gillen. His Honour found it was to be a “quick pick up and go”. When they stopped at the relevant address at Charles Creek Camp police searched the vehicle and located a range of alcoholic drinks including cider, rum and rum and cola. It was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heath v Rout and Heath v Pearce and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NTSC 17
Decision Date: 14 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heath v Rout and Heath v Pearce, the respondents, Rout and Pearce, were charged under section 75B of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012) (Cth) with the offence of bringing liquor into an Alcohol Protected Area. The respondents argued that they were entitled to a defence under section 86 of the same Act, which allows for a defence if the liquor was brought into the area for a reasonable purpose. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where it was determined whether the section 86 defence was available to the respondents for the charges they faced.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defence provided for in section 86 of the Act could be applied to an offence under section 75B. The respondents contended that the plain language of section 86, which refers to a defence to a charge under "this Act", should include charges under section 75B. Conversely, the prosecution argued that the specific wording of section 75B did not include a reference to the section 86 defence, thus excluding it as a potential defence for the offence. The court had to interpret the legislative provisions to ascertain whether the section 86 defence was applicable.

The court examined the language of both sections 75B and 86 and noted that while section 86 provided a general defence to any charge under the Act, section 75B did not expressly incorporate this defence. The court found that the omission of section 86 in the specific provision of section 75B was deliberate and that the legislature's intent was to exclude the section 86 defence for offences under section 75B. The court concluded that the section 86 defence was not available to the respondents for the charges they faced. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals by the respondents were dismissed, and the convictions under section 75B of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act (2012) (Cth) were affirmed. The court held that the section 86 defence did not apply to the charges brought against the respondents.

Orders