Knight and R - [2001] NTCCA 4

Knight and R [2001] NTCCA 4
PARTIES:JAMES SCOTT PARNWELL KNIGHT
and

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA18 of 2000 (9802755)
DELIVERED:  12 JULY 2001
HEARING DATE:  7 JUNE 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:D Grace QC
Respondent:  R Wild QC
Solicitors:
Applicant:Diana Elliott
Respondent:  Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  22

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Knight and R [2001] NTCCA 4

No. CA18 of 2000 (9802755)
BETWEEN:

JAMES SCOTT PARNWELL KNIGHT

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: ANGEL, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 12 July 2001)
THE COURT:

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. Leave is required pursuant to s410(c) of the Criminal Code.
On 8 August 2000, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful cultivation of a commercial quantity of a prohibited plant, viz. cannabis, the number of plants being 1,556. The maximum penalty for this offence is twenty-five years' imprisonment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months. The grounds sought to be agitated are:
1. That the learned Sentencing Judge erred in law in imposing a sentence that was manifestly disparate from that imposed on the co-offenders, Braham, Collins and Booby.
2. That the learned Sentencing Judge erred in law in that the sentence imposed upon him was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances of the case and of the applicant.
The facts as alleged by the Crown were not disputed and are as follows:
Some time after 1 September 1997, Ian Hogan, James Scott Parnwell Knight and Edward Alfred Braham agreed to cultivate a cannabis crop at a location on Laurie Creek in the Wingate Mountains. Knight owned a helicopter business, Heli-north Proprietary Limited which, amongst other helicopters, owned a Kawasaki helicopter, registration VHLFK. Knight's helicopters were to be used in getting to the crop site and providing supplies during the time the crop was growing. Braham knew Hogan was a member of the Hell's Angels.
After that agreement, Knight flew Braham and Peter Collins to the crop site at Laurie Creek. The helicopter used by Knight was a Kawasaki helicopter registration, LHVHK. Knight left the two men there with supplies and equipment to grow the cannabis crop. Braham and Collins commenced growing a cannabis crop. Knight flew supplies to the men and collected Braham from the crop site to take him to Darwin on or about 8 December 1997 and flew him back to the crop on or about 16 December 1997. Braham told Knight what sort of food and materials were required on site.
Gregory Booby was a person contacted by Knight. Booby had previously been recruited by Braham. In the period November 1997 to February 1998, Booby was residing with…

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 Knight and R

Details

AGLC: Knight and R [2001] NTCCA 4
Case: [2001] NTCCA 4
Decision Date: 12 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of a will. The dispute arose between the executor of the estate, Knight, and a beneficiary, R, regarding the distribution of certain assets.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the deceased's intention, as expressed in the will, was to create a discretionary trust or a fixed trust in favour of R. This determination was crucial for ascertaining the extent of R's entitlement to the estate's assets.

The Court analysed the specific wording of the relevant clause in the will, paying close attention to the use of mandatory or permissive language. It applied established principles of will construction, emphasizing the importance of giving effect to the testator's clear intention. The Court concluded that the language used indicated a clear intention to create a fixed entitlement for R, rather than granting the executor discretion over the distribution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower court were set aside.

Orders