ONeill v Lockyer - [2012] NTSC 10

O’Neill v Lockyer [2012] NTSC 10
PARTIES: O’NEILL, Wayne

v
LOCKYER, Marissa

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   104 of 2011 (21128817)
DELIVERED:   1 March 2012
HEARING DATES:   18 November 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BARR J
CATCHWORDS:

SPECIAL CASE STATED – MENTAL ILLNESS OR MENTAL DISTURBANCE – SUMMARY JURISDICTION – DISMISSAL OF CHARGE – ONUS OF PROOF
Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) s 77 – provision of certificate under s 77(2) – receipt of evidence additional to the certificate – court’s power to dismiss charges under s 77(4) – whether the court can rely on a certificate to satisfy itself of mental illness or mental disturbance under s 77(4)(a) – onus is on defendant to prove a defence under s 77(4)
Criminal Code s 43C, s 43D, s 43E, s 43F, s 43X, s 43ZA, s 189A
Justices Act s 162
Mental Health and Related Services Act s 77

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; Dunstan v Comcare [2011] FCAFC 108, applied.

Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Balchin & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon, Mununggurr v Gordon and Mununggurr v Balchin [2011] NTSC 82; Sodeman v The King (1936) 55 CLR 192, followed.
Taylor v Bamber & Anor [2011] NTSC 36, explained.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Informant and Complainant:          P Usher
Defendant:   J Hunyor and B Wild
Solicitors:
Informant and Complainant:          Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:   North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   Bar1201
Number of pages:   14

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
O’Neill v Lockyer [2012] NTSC 10

No. 104 of 2011 (21128817)
BETWEEN:

WAYNE O’NEILL

Informant and Complainant

AND:

MARISSA LOCKYER

Defendant

CORAM: BARR J
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 1 March 2012)
Special case stated

On 1 September 2011 Suzanne Oliver SM, Stipendiary Magistrate for the Northern Territory of Australia, sitting as the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, stated a special case reserving questions of law for the consideration of the Supreme Court pursuant to s 162 Justices Act.[1]
The defendant was charged on complaint before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction that, on 15 October 2010 at Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia, being a person against whom a DVO was in force, she engaged in conduct that resulted in a contravention of a Domestic Violence Order, contrary to s 120(1) Domestic and Family Violence Act; and further on the same date, that she resisted a member of the police force in the execution of his duty, contrary to s 158 Police Administration Act. The defendant was also charged on information that on the same date she unlawfully assaulted a police officer, Constable Jennifer Young, in the execution of her duty, contrary to s 189A of the Criminal Code.
On 25 November 2010 the defendant appeared before the Court of…

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 ONeill v Lockyer

Details

AGLC: O’Neill v Lockyer [2012] NTSC 10
Case: [2012] NTSC 10
Decision Date: 01/03/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ONeill v Lockyer, the matter was before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The defendant, ONeill, was charged with criminal offences and sought dismissal on the basis of mental illness or mental disturbance under section 77(4) of the Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT). The central issue for the court was whether it could rely solely on a certificate provided under section 77(2) of the Act to dismiss the charges, or whether additional evidence was required. Further, the court needed to determine the onus of proof in relation to the defence.

The court held that the provision of a certificate under section 77(2) was not sufficient for the court to dismiss charges under section 77(4)(a). The judge emphasised that the court must satisfy itself of the defendant's mental illness or mental disturbance. This requires additional evidence beyond the certificate. The court also clarified that the onus of proof was on the defendant to establish the defence under section 77(4). The court concluded that the trial judge had erred by relying solely on the certificate and that additional evidence was necessary to determine the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the defendant. The court's decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's role in comprehensively evaluating the evidence, including but not limited to the certificate, to determine the defendant's mental condition. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that the defendant bears the burden of proving their defence under the relevant statute.

Orders