Jenkins v Todd - [2017] NTCA 6

CITATION:Jenkins v Todd [2017] NTCA 6
PARTIES:JENKINS, Trevor
v

TODD, Walter

TITLE OF COURT:  NORTHERN TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:AP 5 of 2016 (21425645)
DELIVERED ON:  20 July 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Darwin
HEARING DATE:  11 July 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – APPEAL
Appellant has not complied with orders for the purpose of prosecuting his appeal – appellant has not prosecuted his appeal with due diligence – appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Supreme Court Act (NT) s 52
Supreme Court Rules (NT) r 84.13, r 84.16
Drover v Northern Territory of Australia & Anor [2004] NTCA 10, considered.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Self-represented
Respondent:  WJ Karczewski QC, Director of Public Prosecutions
Solicitors:
Appellant:Self-represented
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Number of pages:  13

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Jenkins v Todd [2017] NTCA 6

AP 5 of 2016 (21425645)
BETWEEN:

TREVOR JENKINS

Appellant

AND:

WALTER TODD

Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 20 July 2017)

On 2 February 2016 the appellant lodged a document with the Supreme Court Registry in standard Form 85B. The document purports to be a Notice of Appeal in pursuance of r 85.09 of the Supreme Court Rules (NT).
The document nominates “Todd” as respondent to the appeal. The document goes on to specify that the appellant appeals from the judgment given on 21 January 2016. Although not express in the Notice of Appeal, this can only be a reference to the judgment of Barr J delivered in Jenkins v Todd [2016] NTSC 4 on that date.
That was a decision in a Justices Appeal brought by the appellant in respect of findings made by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 27 March 2015 that the appellant was guilty of the following charges:
(1) that on 29 May 2014, he trespassed on a place, namely Parliament House Darwin, and after being directed to leave that place by the occupier, namely Security Guard Mark Daffey, failed and refused to do so forthwith, contrary to s 7(1) of the Trespass Act (NT);
(2) that on 29 May 2014, at Darwin, he did unlawfully assault a person, namely Mark Daffey, who was working in the performance of his duties at the time of the assault, contrary to s 188A(1) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code (NT); and
(3) that on 29 May 2014 at Darwin he did resist a member of the Police Force in the execution of his duty, contrary to s 158 of the Police Administration Act (NT).
In Reasons for Judgment delivered on 21 January 2016 Barr J ultimately determined:
[123] The appeal is allowed in part.
[124] Pursuant to s 177(2)(c) Justices Act, I order that the finding of guilt and conviction on count 3 be quashed. I enter a verdict of not guilty to the offence charged as count 3. The orders that…

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 Jenkins v Todd

Details

AGLC: Jenkins v Todd [2017] NTCA 6
Case: [2017] NTCA 6
Decision Date: 20 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales was called upon to determine the outcome of an appeal brought by Jenkins against a decision of the District Court. Jenkins, the appellant, had initially brought a proceeding in the District Court against Todd, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was not specified in the text, but it is clear that Jenkins was dissatisfied with the outcome of the District Court and sought to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Jenkins had complied with the necessary procedural requirements for prosecuting his appeal, particularly the requirement to do so with due diligence.

The court held that Jenkins had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal. It was noted that Jenkins had not taken any steps to ensure that his appeal was heard in a timely manner. The court emphasised that an appellant must prosecute their appeal with due diligence, meaning that they must take all reasonable steps to ensure that their appeal is heard and determined as quickly as possible. In this case, Jenkins had not taken any steps to ensure that his appeal was heard in a timely manner, and the court found that this amounted to a failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The court's decision highlights the importance of due diligence in the prosecution of appeals. It is not enough for an appellant to simply file an appeal; they must also take all reasonable steps to ensure that their appeal is heard and determined as quickly as possible. Failure to do so can result in the appeal being dismissed, as it was in this case. The court's decision serves as a reminder to all appellants of the importance of due diligence in the prosecution of appeals.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution, and that Jenkins bear the costs of the appeal.

Orders