Palmer v Pryce - [2000] NTSC 7

Palmer v Pryce [2000] NTSC 7
PARTIES:ALAN FITZPATRICK PALMER
v

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AS JA57 of 1999 (9722659)
AS JA58 of 1999 (9723718)

DELIVERED:  9 March 2000
HEARING DATES:  23 and 25 February 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Mr K Kilvington
Respondent:  Mr J Birch
Solicitors:
Appellant:Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:           C
Judgment ID Number:  ang20001
Number of pages:  7

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
No. JA57/1999 (9722659)
No. JA58/1999(9723718)
Palmer v Pryce [2000] NTSC 7

BETWEEN:
ALAN FITZPATRICK PALMER
Appellant

AND:
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE
Respondent

CORAM: ANGEL J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 9 March 2000)

This is an appeal from certain findings of guilt of Mr Donald DCM sitting as the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs on 10 August 1999.

In proceedings before the learned Magistrate, the appellant was charged with a series of offences contained in four files (9722659, 9722659, 9800892 and 9800892) which included assault and various alleged failures to comply with a domestic violence order, in all, nine counts. The appeal relates to only two of those files and is confined to three counts, namely, Count 3 on file 9722659, and Counts 1 and 2 on file 9723718, each of which concerns the defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of a domestic violence order, allegedly contrary to s 10 of the Domestic Violence Act.
In respect of all three counts the Magistrate recorded a finding of guilt, ordered no conviction and released the appellant on a bond to be of good behaviour of one year in the sum of $500.00.
The relevant domestic violence order restrained the appellant, inter alia from approaching or remaining at any place where Leanne Kunoth was living or staying, or approaching or contacting Leanne Kunoth directly or indirectly except to arrange contact with their children via family members.
His Worship sets out in his decision the circumstances of the alleged breaches. The offence comprising Count 3 on file 9722659 was alleged to have occurred on the 26 July 1997. The appellant had returned to the complainant’s mother’s residence about an hour after he had previously been there. He asked whether the complainant, Ms Kunoth, was coming home.
Count 1 of file 9723718 related to an incident on 17 September 1997 when the appellant met Ms Kunoth at the Alice Springs Coles Complex for the purpose of obtaining some money that he intended to use for the upkeep of the children. Count 2, on the same file, related to an incident on 3 October 1997 when the appellant who was outside Ms Kunoth’s mother’s residence called out through a closed door asking Ms Kunoth and the child if they were going home.
The learned Magistrate found, inter alia, that Ms Kunoth “sought to rely on the order when it…

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 Palmer v Pryce

Details

AGLC: Palmer v Pryce [2000] NTSC 7
Case: [2000] NTSC 7
Decision Date: 9 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Fitzpatrick Palmer appealed against findings of guilt made by Donald DCM, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs, on 10 August 1999. The appeal concerned three counts of the appellant's failure to comply with a domestic violence order, in breach of s 10 of the Domestic Violence Act. The learned Magistrate found the appellant guilty of all three counts, ordered no conviction, and released him on a bond to be of good behaviour of one year in the sum of $500.00. The appeal focused on the mens rea requirement for breaches of domestic violence orders. The appellant argued that s 10 of the Domestic Violence Act required mens rea, and that the Magistrate erred in finding him guilty without considering this requirement. He contended that his belief that the order had been dropped or was being dropped negated any mens rea. The Crown argued that s 10 of the Domestic Violence Act created strict liability offences and did not require mens rea.

The court found that while regulatory offences are generally of strict liability, the terms of the statute creating the offence determine whether an offence contains a mental element. The court agreed with the appellant's argument that if a regulatory offence is created which, as a matter of construction, contains a mental element, then despite the inapplicability of s 31 Criminal Code, the mental element remains an element of the offence. The court held that the Magistrate was in error in concluding that the appellant was guilty of an offence against s 10 Domestic Violence Act in circumstances where the appellant believed that the order was no longer in place and his approaches to the complainant were made pursuant to her authority, permission, or licence. The appeal was allowed, the findings of guilty were set aside, and verdicts of not guilty were entered in respect of the three counts the subject of the appeal.

Orders