[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2005 List]

Sanderson v Lambe [2005] NTSC 44

PARTIES: SANDERSON, Karen

LAMBE, Michael Paul

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: SPECIAL CASE STATED BY THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: JA 33 of 2005 (20505505)

DELIVERED: 12 August 2005

HEARING DATE: 10 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF: RILEY J

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT

Complaint of contempt contrary to s 46(1) Justices Act (NT) – whether any person has jurisdiction or standing to lay the complaint – whether any magistrate has jurisdiction or standing to hear the complaint – the statutory offence may be initiated, heard and determined in the same way as other offences.

Justices Act (NT) , s 46, 50, 162

Tippett v Murphy (1982) 62 FLR 183 at 190, considered

Davis v Baillee [1946] VLR 486 at 492, considered

Lewis v Judge Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682 at 693, considered

The King v Dunbabin ex parte Williams (1935) 53 CLR 434 at 445, considered

European Asia Bank AG v Wentworth (1986) 5 NSWLR 445 at 460, considered

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Complainant: N. Crafti

Defendant: In person

Solicitors:

Complainant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant: --

Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: ril0521

Number of pages: 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

OF AUSTRALIA

AT DARWIN

Sanderson v Lambe [2005] NTSC 44

No JA 33 of 2005 (20505505)

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF a special case stated by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin

BETWEEN:

SANDERSON, Karen

Complainant

AND:

LAMBE, Michael Paul

Defendant

CORAM: RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 12 August 2005)

1. This matter comes before the Court by way of case stated by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of s 162 of the Justices Act. The case stated is in the following terms:

“1. The above-named complainant made a complaint against the above-named defendant for that the said defendant did on the 20 th day of June 2003 at Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia

(i) wilfully interrupted the proceedings of the Darwin Court of Summary Jurisdiction by verbally intervening in an exchange between the presiding magistrate and a defendant before the court. Contrary to section 46(1) of the Justices Act.

(ii) conducted yourself disrespectfully to the Justice during the sittings of the court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin by saying the following words to the presiding magistrate – “You’ve got not right to lie”, “Oh, you remember me do you?”, “I thought you didn’t remember us, you suddenly remember me now”, “Your memory is coming back, is it?” and “You lied in court mate, we heard you”. Contrary to section 46(1) of the Justices Act.

2. The said complaint came on for hearing before me on the fifteenth day of February 2005. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. I queried whether the charge had been properly laid and…

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 Sanderson v Lambe

Details

AGLC: Sanderson v Lambe [2005] NTSC 044
Case: [2005] NTSC 44
Decision Date: 12 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Sanderson v Lambe, the defendant, Michael Paul Lambe, was accused of contempt of court under section 46(1) of the Justices Act by Karen Sanderson, who was acting as a sergeant of police. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory following a special case stated by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The court was required to determine whether anyone other than the magistrate presiding over proceedings in which a contempt of court was alleged to have been committed had jurisdiction or standing to lay a complaint and hear and determine the matter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sergeant of police had the jurisdiction and standing to lay a complaint for an offence under section 46(1) of the Justices Act and whether any magistrate had jurisdiction and standing to hear and determine the matter. The court examined section 46 of the Justices Act, which creates a statutory offence broadly described as contempt of court and permits the presiding justice to take action. The court noted that there was nothing within section 46 that required the complaint to be laid by the presiding magistrate or that the matter be heard and determined by that magistrate. Therefore, the statutory offence could be initiated and heard and determined in the same way as other offences.

The court concluded that the sergeant of police had jurisdiction and standing to lay a complaint if authorised by sections 49 and 50 of the Justices Act and that any magistrate had jurisdiction and standing to hear and determine the complaint. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that there was nothing to suggest that the statutory offence created by section 46 could not be initiated, heard, and determined in the same way as other offences. The court's decision was that the questions posed for the consideration of the Court in the special case should be answered in the affirmative.

The final orders of the court were that the sergeant of police had jurisdiction and standing to lay a complaint for an offence under section 46(1) of the Justices Act and that any magistrate had jurisdiction and standing to hear and determine the matter. This decision clarified the jurisdictional and standing issues surrounding complaints of contempt of court under the Justices Act in the Northern Territory of Australia.

Orders