Northern Territory Licensing Commission v Roberts - [2006] NTMC 65

CITATION: Northern Territory Licensing Commission v Roberts [2006] NTMC 065

PARTIES: NORTHERN TERRITORY LICENSING COMMISSION

MARION ROBERTS

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Justices Act

FILE NO(s): 20528106

DELIVERED ON: 31 July 2006

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 30 January 2006, 3 February 2006,
21 February 2006 & 20 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Jenny Blokland CM

CATCHWORDS:

FORFEITURE – STATUTORY INTERPRETATION –
Liquor Act (NT), ss 95 – 101;
Justices Act (NT), s 130B
Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT), s 66

Pearce and Geddes Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 5th edition.
Gifford, Statutory Interpretation, The Law Book Company.

Wulaign Association Incorporated v Minister for Racing and Gaming (1991) 104 NTR
The Queen v The Chairman of the Liquor Commission of the Northern Territory: Ex parte Djuna;
The Queen v The Chairman of the Liquor Commission of the Northern Territory; Ex parte Central Land Council (1984) 73 FLR 180
Re Director of Public Prosecutions; Ex parte Lawler and another (1994) 174 CLR 270
Director of Public Prosecutions v Henning [2005] NTSC 41
Forbes v Trader’s Finance Corporation Limited (1972) 126 CLR 429
Brophe v State of Western Australia (1990) 93 ALR 207
R v Lavender [2005] HCA 521
Deborah Petrice Otto (1996) 90A CRIM R 492
R v Uxbridge Justice; EP Commissioner of Police [1981] 1 QB 829

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Referring Party: Mr Lye/Mr Smyth
Claimant: Ms Jones

Solicitors:
Referring Party: Department of Justice
Claimant: North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2006] NTMC 065
Number of paragraphs: 28

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20528106

BETWEEN:

NORTHERN TERRITORY LICENSING COMMISSION
Referring Party

AND:

MARION ROBERTS
Claimant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 31 July 2006)

Ms BLOKLAND CM:

Introduction

1. This is an unusual matter concerning a claim for the return of a seized item. The claim has been referred to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction by the Chair of the Licensing Commission pursuant to s 100 Liquor Act (NT) to be dealt with in all respects as if it were made by a claimant of property under s 130B of the Justices Act (NT).

2. Ms Marion Roberts, (“the claimant”) seeks the return of her seized vehicle. The factual findings necessary to answer the point in question are largely agreed. First, Ms Marion Roberts was the owner of vehicle Registered No. NT 575 055 seized on 29 April 2005 in connection with an offence of “bring liquor into a restricted area” against the s 75(1)(a) Liquor Act. Ms Roberts, along with others, was a passenger in the vehicle when it was apprehended at a roadblock on the Ngukurr side of Roper River, 100 metres within the restricted area. Police searched the vehicle and found liquor. On 10 August 2005 arising out of this same incident, at Ngukurr Court, a Mr Edward Daniels was convicted of “bring liquor, namely, Victoria Bitter beer, Jim Beam bourbon and Bundaberg rum, into a restricted area, namely, Ngukurr alcohol restricted…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Northern Territory Licensing Commission v Roberts and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NTMC 65
Decision Date: 31 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Northern Territory Licensing Commission v Roberts [2006] NTMC 065 involved a dispute over the forfeiture of a vehicle seized by the police in connection with a liquor-related offence. The claimant, Marion Roberts, sought the return of her vehicle, which was seized on 29 April 2005, and subsequently forfeited to the Northern Territory. The Liquor Act (NT) mandated that if no prosecution was instituted within 30 days, the owner of the seized vehicle must be notified to claim delivery of the vehicle. The Chair of the Licensing Commission had referred the matter to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under s 130B of the Justices Act (NT). The key legal issues were whether the vehicle was already forfeit to the Northern Territory and if the Court had the authority to order the return of the vehicle to the claimant. The claimant argued that the Chair of the Licensing Commission was required to notify her to claim delivery of the vehicle, and as she had made a claim, the Court had to deal with it under s 130B Justices Act. The Licensing Commission argued that the vehicle was already forfeit to the Northern Territory by virtue of s 96 Liquor Act and the Court could only confirm the forfeiture or decline to return the vehicle. The Court found that the Liquor Act invited ambiguity in particular the relationship between s 96 and ss 98-100, and it would be a reasonable interpretation of the legislative scheme to the effect that if a prosecution was not commenced within 30 days, Notice and referral to the Court was to occur. The Court concluded that forfeiture had not been effected and ordered the seized motor vehicle to be returned to the claimant.

Orders