Rigby v Mohammad Paul Corpus

Case [2023] NTLC 6

CITATION:Rigby v Mohammad Paul Corpus [2023] NTLC 6

PARTIES:Kerry Rigby

v

Mohammad Paul Corpus

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT

JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL

FILE NO(s):22130865

DELIVERED ON:  24 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:  Darwin

HEARING DATE(s):  23 November 2022 and 6, 7 & 17 March 2023

DECISION OF:  Greg Macdonald

CATCHWORDS:

Firearms Act 1997 (NT) – s 58 and s 95 - Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976 (NT) – s 12 and s 122 - Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation By-Laws 1984 – By-law 14 – firearms - parks and reserves.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Firearms Act 1997 (NT)
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976 (NT)
Summary Offences Act 1923 (NT)
Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation By-Laws 1984 (NT)
Crown Lands Act 1992 (NT)
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)
Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act 2003 (NT)
Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT)
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)
Fisheries Act 1988 (NT)
Police Administration Act 1978 (NT)
Interpretation Act 1978 (NT)

He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Cole v Rigby [2023] NTSC 20
Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555
Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill [2011] NTSC 42
Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5
Talbot v Malogorski [2014] NTSC 54
Campbell v Arnold (1982) 13 NTR 7
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v CQW17 [2018] FCAFC 110
Hammond v Lavender (1976) 50 ALJR 728

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Complainant:      Mr C Teng

Defendant:          Self

Solicitors:

Complainant:      ODPP

Defendant:          Self

Decision category classification:  B

Decision ID number:  2023 NTLC 6

Number of paragraphs:  34

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

No. 22130865

BETWEEN:

Kerry Rigby

Applicant

AND:

Mohammad Paul Corpus

Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 24 March 2023)

JUDGE MACDONALD

The Charges and Hearing

  1. On 23 November 2022, Mohamad Paul Corpus (the Defendant) entered ‘no plea’ to 11 charges brought by the Complainant. The Court accepted those ‘pleas’ as of not guilty. The hearing took place that date, and briefly on 2 February 2023, then on 6 and 7 March 2023.

  2. The charges arose following a goose hunting incident which took place on 8 September 2021 in a rural area known as Fogg Dam and Lambell’s Lagoon, approximately 70km south-east of Darwin.

  3. It was apparent from the outset that the Defendant questioned the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges.[1] That position was compounded by the Defendant’s choice to represent himself, and not engage any lawyer for advice or appearance. The Defendant’s lack of legal training did not assist the efficient hearing and determination of the proceedings, however the prosecutor on behalf of the DPP sought at all stages to ensure transparency and that the proceedings were conducted as fairly as possible.

  4. It should be noted that, due to snippets in evidence of witnesses, various comments by the Defendant from the bar…

Continue reading Rigby v Mohammad Paul Corpus

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rigby v Mohammad Paul Corpus [2023] NTLC 6
Case
[2023] NTLC 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Rigby v Mohammad Paul Corpus involved a dispute under the Firearms Act 1997 (NT) and the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1976 (NT), concerning the Defendant’s possession and carrying of a firearm within a reserve. The primary issues that arose from the evidence presented included whether the Defendant was indeed Mohammad Paul Corpus, whether he was within a relevant reserve at the time, whether he was in possession of a firearm without a licence, whether he carried the firearm in a reserve without a permit, and whether he refused or failed to provide his name and address when requested. These issues were crucial in determining the validity of the charges against the Defendant.

The court had to decide if the Defendant was the individual encountered by the officers and if he was within the reserve when he was found with a firearm. It was also necessary to establish whether the Defendant possessed the firearm without a licence and whether he carried it within the reserve without a permit. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the Defendant refused to provide his name and address, and if any defences were available under the circumstances. The court's reasoning was grounded in the evidence provided by the witnesses, the documentary evidence, and the geographic understanding of the conservation officers who encountered the Defendant.

After considering the evidence and testimonies, the court found that the Defendant, Mohammad Paul Corpus, was indeed the individual encountered by the officers on 8 September 2021. The court accepted the conservation officers’ testimony that they were within the Lambell’s Lagoon Conservation Reserve when they encountered the Defendant with a shotgun. Despite some discrepancies in the exact location, the court concluded that the officers were within the reserve. The court also found that the Defendant was in possession of a firearm without a licence and carried it within the reserve without a permit. Additionally, the Defendant failed to provide his name and address when requested by the officers.

The court's final orders reflected its findings. The Defendant was found guilty of unlicensed possession of a firearm, carrying a firearm in a reserve without a permit, and failing to provide his name and address while in possession of a firearm. The charges under sections 58 and 95(a) of the Firearms Act and By-Law 14(1)(a) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation By-Laws were upheld. The court's decision was based on the evidence and testimonies presented, ensuring that the Defendant's actions contravened the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Due to the allegations, evidence, and the Defendant’s stance to the proceedings, six main issues arose for determination. Some of those entailed subsidiary issues, which are also discussed below. The primary issues are;(i)Was it the Defendant who the officers encountered on 8 September 2021?(ii)Was the Defendant within a relevant Reserve on that date?(iii)Was the Defendant in possession of a firearm without a licence to do so?(iv)Was the Defendant carrying a firearm in a Reserve without a permit? (v)Did the Defendant refuse or fail to provide his name and address when requested to do so?(vi)If yes to (iii), (iv) or (v), is any defence made out on any charge? Evidence and Findings The three counts which remained by the end of the hearing were counts one, two and ten, being; unlicensed possession of a firearm, carry a firearm in a Reserve without a permit and, lastly, while in possession of a firearm, failure to provide name and address to a member of the Police Force. Those charges were alleged as contraventions of s 58 and s 95(a) of the Firearms Act and By-Law 14(1) (a) of the TPWC By-Laws.[7] On 23 September 2022, relevant oral evidence was heard from conservation officers Emma Jackson and David McLachlan.[8] On 6 March 2023, Parks and Wildlife Permit Officer Janet McLennan and Sergeant Michael Lunney gave evidence. Relevant documentary evidence tendered through various witnesses included four aerial photographs of the Fogg Dam and Black Jungle/Lambell’s Lagoon Conservation Reserves (with superimposed Reserve boundaries cartographically drawn in green),[9] Crown Lease in Perpetuity 02516 registered 21 March 2018 in favour of the Conservation Land Corporation, photographs of the shotgun seized on 8 September 2021, and a certificate issued under section 104A of the Firearms Act in respect of the Defendant. Despite the Defendant’s reluctance to engage in the proceeding through cross-examination of witnesses or adducing or giving any evidence (other than to confirm his First Nations heritage), he apparently conceded presence and the alleged interaction with the officers on 8 September 2021.[10] A range of admissible and inadmissible evidence concerning identification existed, as did potential for s 114 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (ENULA) to be raised. The accepted caution at common law in relation to the unreliability of identification evidence would also have been relevant.[11] Regardless of the possible disadvantage to his case, the Defendant’s concession assisted in expediting determination of the issues. On the first issue, I find that the first man encountered by officers on 8 September 2021 and now subject to the charges on file 2130865 was the Defendant, Mohammad Paul Corpus. In relation to the second issue, I am satisfied through exhibits P2, P4, P8 and P10 that the officers believed they encountered the Defendant in the general vicinity of the LLCR. Although Sgt Lunney marked the location of where he first encountered the Defendant on Exhibit P10 as being within the Black Jungle Conservation Reserve, I consider that was simply an error in reading the aerial photographs and superimposed boundaries. Officers Jackson and McLachlan were intimately familiar with the geographic features of the relevant areas, and their evidence was that they were inside the LLCR when they encountered the Defendant with a shotgun and geese. I find their evidence comprising locations hand-marked in red on exhibits P1 and P2 (becoming exhibits P7 and P8) to be accurate depictions, including due to the specifics of conservation officer McLachlan’s evidence.[12] That conclusion, however, does not amount to conclusive evidence that the Defendant was within a Reserve at the relevant time.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.