Michael Court v Paula Nadas - [2024] NTLC 9

CITATION:	Michael Court v Paula Nadas [2024] NTLC 9
PARTIES:	Michael Court (NT Police)
v
Paula Nadas
TITLE OF COURT:	LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:	CRIMINAL
FILE NO(s):	22116347
DELIVERED ON:	21 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Alice Springs
HEARING DATE(s):	23 February 2024 & 1 March 2024
DECISION OF:	Judge Woodroffe
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Local Government Act – Claim of Immunity – when to determine claim – s.111(1) Local Government Act – statutory construction - honest act or omission – possibility of human error - failure to observe established procedures – ruling on immunity

Criminal Code Act
Local Government Act 1978
Police Administration Act 1978
Fox v Coates (2010) 27 NTLR 220.
Board of Fire Commissioners (NSW) v Androuin (1961) 109 CLR
Australian National Airlines Commission v Newman (1987) 162 CLR 466
DPP v Scibilia [2023] SASC 87
DPP (NSW) v Weinstein (2010) 78 NSWLR 666
Queen v Rolfe (2021) 273 CLR 413

Electro Optic Systems P/L v The State of New South Wales [2012] ACTSC 184

Page | 1

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Complainant: Mr Dalrymple & Mr Gooley
Defendant: Ms Chalmers SC

Solicitors:

Complainant: ODPP
Defendant: Illes Seley Lawyers

Decision category classification: B

Decision ID number: [2024] NTLC 9

Number of paragraphs: 29

Page | 2

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN

TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 22116347

BETWEEN:
MICHAEL COURT
Applicant
AND:
PAULA NADAS
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION (Delivered 21 March 2024)

Ruling as to application of immunity

1. The defendant, Paula Nadas is charged on Information dated 31 August 2022 and 14 November 2023, both jointly and separately for recklessly or negligently causing the death of a child JW on 2 December 2020 contrary to s 160 of the Criminal Code Act 1983.
2.    Given the strictly indictable nature of the charges for negligent manslaughter the matter commenced and continued by way of preliminary examination under the Local Court (Criminal Procedures) Act over a substantial period.
3.    On the 23 February 2024 there was heard an application by the defendant the following two issues;
i.      The defendant has a claim of immunity concerning the continuation of the criminal prosecution against her;
ii.     That the charges on Information should be dismissed; and
iii.    The prosecution also indicates that there should be a case stated on the question of law of the immunity. Based on these reasons for decision I do not consider it necessary.

4. There is an agreed substratum of facts that are contained in exhibit D1 of the hearing of the application. I have set out a summary of the facts to be considered.

Page | 3

Facts

5. The non-contentious facts are that at the material time of 2 December 2020 the defendant was an employee of the MacDonnell Shire Council as an Acting Team Leader of the Kintore Early Learning Centre on a temporary basis with a substantive position in Alice Springs as

the coordinator children’s services.

6. The defendant was the team leader supervising two staff. At 10 am 6 children including the…

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 Michael Court v Paula Nadas

Details

AGLC: Michael Court v Paula Nadas [2024] NTLC 9
Case: [2024] NTLC 9
Decision Date: 21 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Paula Nadas, was charged with recklessly or negligently causing the death of a child, JW, on 2 December 2020, contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Code Act 1983. The case was heard in the Local Court of the Northern Territory. The defendant argued that she was immune from prosecution under section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 2008 (NT), which provides immunity to council staff for honest acts or omissions in the performance of official functions. The central legal issue was whether the immunity provision applied to the defendant in this context.

The court considered the statutory interpretation of section 111(1) of the Local Government Act and the relevant case law. The court found that the immunity provision was intended to protect council staff from criminal liability for honest acts or omissions in the performance of their official functions. The court rejected the prosecution's argument for a narrow construction of the immunity provision, citing cases such as DPP v Scibilia and Electro Optic Systems P/L v The State of New South Wales. The court concluded that the defendant's failure to conduct a head count did not equate to dishonesty or bad faith.

The court ordered that Paula Nadas had immunity under section 111(1) of the Local Government Act 2008 (NT) and dismissed the charges against her.

Orders