MCT v McKinney

Case [2006] NTCA 10
Highway & Ors v Tudor-Stack [2006] NTCA 04

PARTIES: HIGHWAY, Stuart
INDER-SMITH, Robert Paul
MEYERHOFF, Gary William

v

TUDOR-STACK, Paul Francis

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: AP 12/04 (20207648); AP 13/04 (20207624); AP 15/04 (20207623)

DELIVERED: 10 May 2006

HEARING DATES: 22 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ

ON APPEAL FROM: Inder-Smith & Ors v Tudor-Stack [2004] NTSC 48

CATCHWORDS:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Parliamentary Powers – appeal against conviction – disturbing the Legislative Assembly whilst in session – freedom of speech

Act Against Tumultuous Petitioning 1661 (13 Car 2, st 1, c 5); Bill of Rights 1688, article 5, article 9; Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp); Criminal Code (NT), s 1, s 31, s 34, s 61, s 61(a); Interpretation Act, s 59; Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act 1992, s 3(3), s 5, s 6, s 25, s 26; Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth), Part III Division I (ss 6-12); Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth), s 16; Seditious Meetings Act 1817 (Imp) (Geo 3, cap XIX s 23); Sentencing Act (NT), s 40(6); Sources of Law Act 1985, s 2, s 3; Statute of Westminster 1931 (Imp), s 2(1);
Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth); Strodes Act 1512 (4 Henry VIII, c 8); The Constitution of Australia, s 122

A C Castles, An Australian Legal History; Sydney, Law Book Company, 1982; Enid Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege, Sydney, Federation Press, 2003; Limon and McKay (eds), Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 22nd ed, London, Butterworths, 1997; McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 2nd ed, Wellington New Zealand, GP Publications, 1994; Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, 9th ed, Canberra, Department of the Senate, 1999; Pettifer (ed), House of Representatives Practice, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1981; Richard L Perry and John C Cooper, Sources of Our Liberties, Alabama, Legal Classics Library edition, 1990; Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol 6, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1937

R v Bernasconi (1915) 19 CLR 629; R v Wright; ex parte Klar (1971) 1 SASR 103; Wake and Anor v NTA and Anor (1996) 5 NTLR 170; (1996) 109 NTR 1; applied

The Queen v Richards; ex parte Fitzpatrick and Browne (1955) 92 CLR 157; distinguished

Bradlaugh v Gossett (1883-1884) 12 QBD 271; followed

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1; Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; Erglis v Buckley (2004) 2 Qd R 599; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) 189 CLR 520; Laurance v Katter (2000) 1 Qd R 147; (1996) 141 ALR 447; Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321; R v Eliot, Hollis and Valentine (1629) 3 St Tr 293; Rowley v O’Chee (2000) 1 Qd R 207; (1997) 150 ALR 199; Johnson v Johnson (2000)…

Continue reading MCT v McKinney

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
MCT v McKinney [2006] NTCA 10
Case
[2006] NTCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal, MCT sought to overturn a decision by the Supreme Court that had ruled in favour of the respondent, McKinney. The primary issue at hand was the discretion of the court to suppress the name of a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice Act (NT). The case also considered the applicability of international standards, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in the context of Australian law.

The court examined the relevant legislation and precedents, determining that the Juvenile Justice Act (NT) provided for the suppression of the identity of juvenile offenders as a means to protect their privacy and facilitate rehabilitation. The court also noted that the principles established in international conventions were consistent with the aims of the Act, which seek to address the best interests of the child. The court found that the Supreme Court had erred in not considering these factors in its decision-making process.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the Supreme Court were set aside. The court ruled that the name of the appellant should not be published and that no material leading to his identification should be disseminated, in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act (NT) and the principles of child welfare legislation. The cross-appeal by the respondent was dismissed, and no further publication of the appellant's identity was permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal by MCT is allowed.

2. Order setting aside the orders made by the Supreme Court dated 3 May 2006.

3. The cross appeal to the Supreme Court by the respondent is dismissed.

4. Order with respect to each of the offences for which the appellant was dealt with in the Juvenile Court that there be no publication of his name or of any material that would lead to his identification.

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.