Police v Izod - [2008] NTMC 36

CITATION: Police v Izod [2008] NTMC 036

PARTIES: GAVIN KENNEDY

IAN IZOD

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICATION

JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NO(s): 20631086

DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2008

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 6 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Dr John Allan Lowndes

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – GOING ARMED IN PULIC – MEANING OF EACH OF THE OFFENCE ELEMENTS – CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF
Criminal Code (NT) s 69
Parmbuck v McMaster [2005] NTSC 72 Applied
R v Anderson [1910] QWN 19 Considered
R v Hildebrandt [1964] Qd R 43 Considered
R v Bennett [1998] 2 Qd R 174 Applied
Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd v Cth Bank of Australia (1992) 111 ALR 671 Considered
R v Campbell (unreported 5.4.90) Considered
Morrisons Holdings Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioner (1996) 1 ALL ER 789 Applied
Jennings v Stephens [1936] Ch 469 Applied
R v Sharp; Sharp v Johnson [1957] QB 552 Applied

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Prosecution: Mr A Woodcock
Defendant: Ms J Truman
Solicitors:
Prosecution: Woodcock Solicitors
Defendant: John Toohey Chambers
Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID number: [2008] NTMC 036
Number of paragraphs:

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

No. 20631086
[2008] NTMC 036

BETWEEN:

GAVIN KENNEDY
Prosecutor

AND:

IAN IZOD
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered as an Oral Decision 12 May 2008)

Dr John Allan Lowndes SM:

NB. Copyright in this transcript is the property of the Crown. If this transcript is copied without the authority of the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, proceedings for infringement will be taken.

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

No 20631086

POLICE

and

IAN CHARLES IZOD

DR J. LOWNDES, SM

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

At DARWIN ON MONDAY 12 MAY 2008

Certified true transcript of a record produced out of the custody of the Clerk of Courts

Transcribed by:
CRS WordWave Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, I’ll be as short as can but there are a number of issues I have to address.

Yes, well, the defendant has been charged with an offence of going armed in public. At the close of the prosecution case I found a case to answer and following that the defence went into evidence and the defendant gave evidence as well as his wife.

In light of all the evidence now, of course, the test is somewhat different to the test which applies at the ‘no case to answer stage. In order to find the defendant guilty of the offence the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the offence.

New issues, of course, arose during the defence case. The first issue was to the effect that Mr Izod had permission to enter the property, that’s the Haines’(?) property on the day in question. I suppose that had been obliquely adverted to in the prosecution case, but it certainly became a live issue in the defence case and, furthermore, the issue as to how the gun was being carried that became…

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 Police v Izod

Details

AGLC: Police v Izod [2008] NTMC 36
Case: [2008] NTMC 36
Decision Date: 12 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Izod involved Ian Charles Izod, who was charged with the offence of going armed in public. The matter was heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction in Darwin, Northern Territory. The key issues for the court to decide included whether the defendant had permission to enter the private property, how the firearm was being carried, and whether the defendant's actions were with lawful occasion. The court had to determine these issues by applying the criminal standard of proof.

The court considered the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence, including witness statements and the defendant's own testimony. In deciding the matter, the court focused on whether the defendant's actions satisfied the elements of the offence. The court found that the defendant had entered the private property, but could not be certain that he was a trespasser. Regarding the firearm, the court was unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt whether it was pointed at the individuals on the property or to the ground. The court concluded that the element of 'going armed' was satisfied as the defendant was carrying an object capable of causing fear, regardless of its loading status.

The court further examined the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, as outlined in section 32 of the Criminal Code. The defence argued that the defendant believed the individuals on the property were poachers or otherwise engaged in unlawful conduct, and thus had a lawful reason to carry the firearm. However, the court found the defendant's explanation to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility. The court also concluded that even if the defendant had an honest belief, it was unreasonable given the circumstances, and thus the defence was negated beyond reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, the court found Ian Charles Izod guilty of the offence of going armed in public. The court determined that the defendant's actions met the required elements of the offence, and the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact was not applicable in this case. The defendant was found guilty as charged.

Orders