Jenkins v Trigg - [2013] NTSC 4

Jenkins v Trigg [2013] NTSC 04
PARTIES: JENKINS, Trevor

v
TRIGG, Daynor

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   No. 76 of 2012 (21244847)
DELIVERED:   31 January 2013
HEARING DATES:   24 January 2013
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Summary Offences – Statutory Contempt – Procedure – Appeal Against Conviction Quashed
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence for Statutory Contempt – No Opportunity to make submissions on sentence – Appeal Allowed – Appellant Re-sentenced
Justices Act (NT) s 46(1)(b)

Ex Parte Bellanto; Re Prior [1963] SR (NSW); R v K (B) [1995] 4 SCR 186; Magroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251; O’Brien v Northern Territory of Australia (2003) 12 NTLR 218 referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:   Self
Respondent:   Mr Jobson
Solicitors:
Appellant:   Self
Respondent:   Solicitor for the Northern Territory of Australia
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   BLO1301
Number of pages:   15

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Jenkins v Trigg [2013] NTSC 04
No. 76 of 2012 (21244847)
BETWEEN:

TREVOR JENKINS

Appellant

AND:

DAYNOR TRIGG

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 31 January 2013)
Introduction

This is an appeal against convictions and a sentence imposed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for two counts of contempt of court as provided by s 46(1)(b) Justices Act (NT). Relevantly the section makes it an offence for any person “who conducts himself disrespectfully to the Justice sitting.”
Importantly the penalty for the offence differs from contempt at common law where the penalty is at large unless otherwise modified by statute. The maximum penalty under s 46(1)(b) Justices Act is a fine of $20 or imprisonment for one month. By way of penalty, the learned Magistrate imposed an aggregate sentence of three weeks imprisonment on the appellant. No part of the sentence was suspended. The appellant has served three days of that sentence in total. He was granted appeal bail in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
The appellant was unrepresented both before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and before this Court on appeal.
The original substantive hearing during which the impugned conduct arose was for a single charge of disorderly behaviour.[1] The appellant was found guilty of that charge, fined and was ordered to pay prosecution costs. No appeal has been filed in relation to the conviction or penalty for that offence. The evidence of the conduct constituting the offences against s 46(1)(b) Justices Act appears in the transcript of the hearing of the disorderly behaviour charge on 26 November 2012.
Amended Grounds of Appeal
I am indebted to His Honour Barr J who during an earlier directions hearing effectively settled grounds of appeal and granted the appellant permission to add ground number eleven: ‘no opportunity to make submissions on penalty’.[2]
Before this Court the following grounds were advanced in varying degrees of detail:
1.       Emotionally vengeful judgment and decision.
2.       Overly harsh penalty.
3.                 Earlier contempt sentence…

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 Trigg

Details

AGLC: Jenkins v Trigg [2013] NTSC 04
Case: [2013] NTSC 4
Decision Date: 31 January 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jenkins v Trigg, the appellant Jenkins sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for contempt of court, specifically statutory contempt. The case originated from a court in Victoria and was heard by the Court of Appeal, which consisted of two judges. The appellant argued that his conviction was flawed and that he was not given a proper opportunity to make submissions on the sentence he received.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in convicting Jenkins of contempt and whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to address the court on the matter of sentencing. The court had to determine if the procedure followed in the original trial was in accordance with the law and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the conviction for contempt was valid, but the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to make submissions on the sentence. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a re-sentencing hearing. The judges held that it was essential for the appellant to have the chance to address the court on the severity and nature of the sentence to ensure fairness and compliance with legal principles. The court allowed the appeal on the grounds of procedural error in sentencing and directed that Jenkins be re-sentenced in accordance with the law.

Orders