Pizanias v Sultana - [2020] NTLC 16

CITATION:Pizanias v Sultana [2020] NTLC 016
PARTIES:Pantelis Pizanias
V
Nigar Sultana

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:  CIVIL
FILE NO(s):22019107
DELIVERED ON:  13 November 2020
DELIVERED AT:  DARWIN
HEARING DATE(s):  6 November 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Norrington JR
CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL LAW – DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT 2007 (NT) – Whether leave is required for the Commissioner for Police to withdraw or discontinue proceedings to confirm a police DVO.

CIVIL LAW – DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT 2007 (NT) – Whether the authorised officer or the Commissioner for Police have the power to rescind or revoke a police DVO.

Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT), s 3, s 4, s 19(1), s 35(1), s 41, s 44, s 53, s 56, s 67, s 74, Part 2.8, Part 2.9, Part 2.10, s 80, s 81.

Interpretation Act 1978 (NT), s 3(3), s 43

Local Court (Civil Jurisdiction) Rules 1998, r 5.18.

Atkinson v Bardon & Ors [2018] NTSC 9

Boal Quay Wharfingers Ltd v King’s Lynn Conservancy Board [1971] 1 WLR 1558

CEO Department of Children and Families v MGM [2012] NTSC 69

Police v Natasha George [2015] NTMC 018

Police v RA [2010] NTMC 061

Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd (1975) 1 NSWLR 412

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Commissioner for Police: Ms Thomson
Defendant:Ms Gardiner
Protected Person: Ms Van Wyk

Solicitors:
Commissioner for Police: Solicitor for the Northern Territory
Defendant:Da Silva Hebron
Protected Person: Darwin Family Law

Judgment category classification:                A
Judgment ID number:  016
Number of paragraphs:  40

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

No. 22019107
BETWEEN
Pantelis Pizanias
Commissioner for Police
AND
Nigar Sultana
Defendant
AND
Mohammad Hossain
Protected Person

CORAM:NORRINGTON JR

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 13 November 2020)
Introduction

The matter before me originated as a Police DVO made under Part 2.6 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (“the Act”).
The defendant did not consent to the confirmation of the police DVO at the first mention or subsequent mentions of the matter. On 9 October 2020 the matter was listed for hearing at 2.00 pm on 5 February 2021 with trial directions being made for witness statements to be filed. At a further mention on 16 October 2020 the trial directions were varied by consent but the matter remained listed for hearing at 2.00 pm on 5 February 2021.
At a further mention of the matter on 7 August 2020 counsel for the police made an oral application to ‘withdraw the application’ and/or have the police DVO revoked. The defendant supported this application. The protected person opposed the revoking of the police DVO and sought that the matter remain listed for hearing. Ultimately, the protected person seeks that the Police DVO be confirmed.
I heard oral submissions in which Counsel for each party briefly addressed what could be described as two matters requiring judicial determination:
(a) Whether the police could withdraw a police DVO, either with or without leave; and
(b) Whether the police could unilaterally revoke a…

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 Pizanias v Sultana

Details

AGLC: Pizanias v Sultana [2020] NTLC 16
Case: [2020] NTLC 16
Decision Date: 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Pizanias v Sultana arose in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The case involved a dispute concerning the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) and the powers of the Commissioner for Police in relation to police domestic violence orders (DVOs). The primary question before the court was whether the Commissioner for Police required leave to withdraw or discontinue proceedings to confirm a police DVO. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the authorised officer or the Commissioner for Police had the authority to rescind or revoke a police DVO.

The court examined the statutory framework and relevant provisions to address these issues. It was essential to interpret the provisions of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) to ascertain the specific powers and responsibilities of the Commissioner for Police. The court considered the legislative intent and the role of the Commissioner in the context of domestic violence proceedings. The analysis involved a detailed examination of the relevant sections of the Act, focusing on the language used and the overarching objectives of the legislation.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that leave was not required for the Commissioner for Police to withdraw or discontinue proceedings to confirm a police DVO. The court found that the Commissioner for Police did have the power to rescind or revoke a police DVO under the Act. This decision was based on the court's interpretation of the statutory provisions and the powers delegated to the Commissioner for Police in the context of domestic violence matters. The court's interpretation emphasised the need for flexibility and responsiveness in handling domestic violence cases to ensure the safety and protection of victims.

The court ordered that the Commissioner for Police had the authority to withdraw or discontinue proceedings to confirm a police DVO without the need for leave. Additionally, it was determined that both the authorised officer and the Commissioner for Police had the power to rescind or revoke a police DVO. This decision provided clarity on the respective powers and responsibilities under the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT), ensuring that appropriate measures could be taken to address domestic violence effectively.

Orders