Legal Research
Cases
Rigby v Taing

Rigby v Taing

Case [2015] NTSC 16 20 March 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Rigby v Taing [2015] NTSC 16
PARTIES:RIGBY, Kerry

v
TAING, Chea May

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 48 of 2014 (21317506)
DELIVERED:  20 March 2015
HEARING DATES:  28 November 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  HILEY J
APPEAL FROM:  J LOWNDES CM
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – Justices Appeal – Appeal against dismissal of a complaint - Jurisdiction – Justices Act 1979 (NT) s 163(3)
APPEAL –Justices Appeal – Offence under Fisheries Act 1988 (NT) - Possession of commercially unsuitable mud crabs – Need to prove knowledge – Need to prove knowledge that the mud crabs were commercially unsuitable – Knowledge can include constructive knowledge and wilful blindness
CRIMINAL LAW – Criminal Code (NT) – Regulatory offences – Common law requirements of voluntariness and mens rea still apply – Effect of Criminal Code (NT) s 31 and other provisions in Part II not applying to regulatory offences
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Proof – Knowledge as an element of proof - Relevance and effect of statutory defences – Defences in Fisheries Act 1988 (NT) s 38(2)(b)
Criminal Code (NT) s 22, s 21, s 21(1), s 32, s 43ACA, s 47, s 154
Criminal Code (Qld) s 1, s 24
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) s 9, s 57
Fisheries Act 1988 (NT) s 4, s 38(1), s 38(2)(b), s 42
Fisheries Regulations 2014 (NT) Regulations 107KA(2), 107X(2), 107Y(4), 107Z(2), 141JDA(2), 141JP(2), 141JQ(4), 141JR(2), 149
Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT)
Justices Act 1979 (NT) s 163(1), s163(3)

He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Kruger v Kidson (2004) 14 NTLR 91; Rosas v Cahill [2013] NTSC 65; Tabe v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 418; Western Australia v R (2007) 33 WAR 483, applied
Grosvenor v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 5; Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 35 A Crim R 382; Wilson v Malogorski (No 2) (2011) 30 NTLR 128, considered
Pregelj v Manison (1997) 51 NTR 1, distinguished
Balchin v Anthony [2008] NTSC 02; Peach v Bird [2006] NTSC 14; Police v Chea Mey Taing [2009] NTMC 015, referred to

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:R Murphy
Respondent:  A Abayasekara
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Department of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Hil1502
Number of pages:  32

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Rigby v Taing [2015] NTSC 16

No. JA 48 of 2014 (21317506)
BETWEEN:

KERRY RIGBY

Appellant

AND:

CHEA MAY TAING

Respondent

CORAM: HILEY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 20 March 2015)
Introduction
[1]On 27 April 2013 Northern Territory police found nine commercially unsuitable mud crabs at the respondent’s stall at the Parap Markets, Parap, where she was selling amongst other things, mud crabs. The respondent was the holder of a fish retailer licence. Clause 1.1 of the licence prohibited her from selling or possessing commercially unsuitable mud…

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 Rigby v Taing

Details

AGLC: Rigby v Taing [2015] NTSC 16
Case: [2015] NTSC 16
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rigby v Taing, the appellant, Rigby, sought to appeal the dismissal of his complaint against the decision of Taing, a justice of the peace, who had found him guilty of an offence under the Fisheries Act 1988 (NT). The appellant argued that the justices act had been misinterpreted by Taing when he found Rigby guilty of possessing commercially unsuitable mud crabs, without proving that Rigby had the requisite knowledge of the crabs' unsuitability. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

The central issue before the court was whether knowledge of the crabs' unsuitability was an essential element of the offence, and if so, whether the court had correctly applied the law in determining the existence of such knowledge. The court was required to consider whether the statutory defences provided in the Fisheries Act 1988 (NT) s 38(2)(b) adequately addressed the requirement of proving knowledge as an element of the offence, and if the common law principles of voluntariness and mens rea were applicable in this context.

The court held that knowledge of the mud crabs' unsuitability was indeed a necessary component of the offence, and that this knowledge could encompass constructive knowledge or wilful blindness. The court clarified that although the Criminal Code (NT) s 31 and other provisions in Part II did not apply to regulatory offences, the common law principles of voluntariness and mens rea remained applicable. Furthermore, the court found that the statutory defences provided in Fisheries Act 1988 (NT) s 38(2)(b) were insufficient in addressing the requirement of proving knowledge as an element of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

In light of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Northern Territory Magistrates Court for further consideration in accordance with the court's findings.

Orders