O'Brien v Northern Territory of Australia

[2003] NTCA 13

O'Brien v Northern Territory of Australia [2003] NTCA 13

PARTIES:O'BRIEN, Peter James

v

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:AP6 of 2002 (20115382)

DELIVERED:  12 August 2003

HEARING DATES:  25 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:S Southwood QC, P Keyzer

Respondent:  T Pauling QC

Solicitors:

Appellant:Geoff James

Respondent:  Solicitor for the NT

Judgment category classification:      C

Judgment ID Number:  mar0334

Number of pages:  2

mar0334

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

O'Brien v Northern Territory of Australia [2003] NTCA 13
No. AP6 of 2002 (20115382)

BETWEEN:

PETER JAMES O'BRIEN

Appellant

AND:

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

CORAM:    MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 12 August 2003)

Full Court

1. In this matter we allowed the appellant's appeal against a refusal of a Judge to make certain declarations arising from circumstances where the appellant had been taken into custody by direction of a Magistrate where no contempt proceedings had been held.  This Court declared that the learned Magistrate, in directing and causing the appellant to be taken into custody acted without jurisdiction or power.

2. The proceedings, both at first instance and on appeal, required close consideration of the facts lying behind the application and the important question of law.

3. The appellant was not wholly successful on appeal in relation to the findings of fact at first instance, but in our opinion the issues in respect of which he was not successful, and other grounds advanced by the respondent, do not amount to special circumstances such as would warrant departure from the usual rule as to costs.  He was successful on the questions of law.

4. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

   -----------------------------------