SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Summers; R v Miller |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 324 |
Hearing Dates: | 19–21 November 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 22 November 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | The accused Summers is found guilty on all counts. The accused Miller is found guilty on all counts. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – Trial by judge alone – Verdict – Unlawfully taking child by joint commission – Attempt to pervert the course of justice – Verdict of guilty on all counts STATUTES – INTERPRETATION – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 40 – Unlawfully taking child – Elements of an offence – Whether the child was taken “by deception” – Meaning of “deception” – Whether “deception” includes a misrepresentation of intention as opposed to a misrepresentation of fact – Ordinary meaning of the Act – Interpretation that would best achieve the purpose – Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 138, 139, 141 CRIMINAL LAW – GEOGRAPHICAL APPLICATION – Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) pt 2.7 – When an offence is committed completely outside the ACT – Whether a geographical nexus exists between the ACT and the offence – Whether the offence has an effect in the ACT – Where an attempt is an inchoate offence – Whether peace, welfare or good government of the Territory is threatened by an attempt to pervert the course of justice |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 40 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 179 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B |
Cases Cited: | Alcan Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; 239 CLR 27 Corporate Affairs Commission v Papoulias (1990) 20 NSWLR 503 Union Steamship Company of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1 |
Texts Cited: | D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis, 2014, 8th ed) M S Weinberg and C S Williams, The Australian Law of Theft (Law Book Co, 1977) Shorter Oxford Dictionary |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Mark Summers (Accused) Tatania Miller (Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms R Christenson (Crown) Mr P Edmonds (Accused Summers) Mr R Davies (Accused Miller) |
| Solicitors ACT… |
Continue reading R v Summers; R v Miller
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Summers; R v Miller [2018] ACTSC 324
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court first considered whether the child was taken "by deception" under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), specifically whether "deception" included a misrepresentation of intention rather than merely a misrepresentation of fact. The court examined the ordinary meaning of the Act and interpreted it in a way that best achieved the purpose of the legislation. It found that the definition of "deception" encompassed a misrepresentation of intention. The court then turned to the geographical application of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), considering whether the offences had a sufficient nexus with the ACT to fall within its jurisdiction. The court concluded that the peace, welfare, or good government of the Territory was indeed threatened by the attempt to pervert the course of justice, as the offences had an effect within the ACT.
Following this reasoning, the court found the accused, Summers and Miller, guilty on all counts. The court's interpretation of the statutory provisions and its application of the geographical jurisdiction provisions of the Criminal Code led to the conclusion that the offences were properly within the jurisdiction of the ACT and that the accused were rightly found guilty. The final orders of the court were that Summers and Miller were each found guilty on all counts.
Orders
Orders of the court
The accused Summers is found guilty on all counts.
The accused Miller is found guilty on all counts.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.