Sang Fu Lim v Hales - [2004] NTSC 18

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTSC 2004 List] Sang Fu Lim v Hales [2004] NTSC 18

PARTIES: SANG FU LIM

PETER WILLIAM HALES

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: RESERVED QUESTION OF LAW PURSUANT TO S 162 OF THE JUSTICES ACT

FILE NO: 10 of 2004 (20401643)

DELIVERED: 8 April 2004

HEARING DATE: 3 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: BAILEY J

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Appeal - Supreme Court Procedure - Judicial Discretion - Statutory Interpretation of Justices Act - Traffic Offence - Whether Supreme Court has power to determine issues of law where no plea has been taken and no facts have been received or admitted before the Court - Case stated failed to comply with Justices Regulations Form.

Justices Act s 162(1)
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 1999 (2000) 10 NTR 1 - followed

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: D Lewis
Respondent: R Jobson

Solicitors:
Appellant: DPP
Respondent: Rob Jobson

Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number: Bai04002
Number of pages: 8

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

Sang Fu Lim v Hales [2004] NTSC 18
No. 10 of 2004 (20401643)

BETWEEN:

SANG FU LIM
Appellant

AND:

PETER WILLIAM HALES
Respondent

CORAM: BAILEY J

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 8 April 2004)

[1] This matter concerns a number of questions of law purportedly reserved for the consideration of this Court pursuant to s 162 of the Justices Act.
[2] At the hearing of this matter, I was provided with two documents entitled: "Chronology in support of reservation of question of law pursuant to s 162(1) of the Justices Act" and "Questions of law reserved pursuant to s 162(1) of the Justices Act".
[3] The "Chronology" is in the following form:
"1. At all relevant times the defendant in this matter, (Kathy) Sang Fu Lim, was and remains a permanent resident of the State of Victoria.
2. At all material times the defendant was and remains the holder of a valid driving licence issued by the State of Victoria.
3. On or about 23 December 2002 the defendant arrived in the Northern Territory as a visitor accompanied by friends from Victoria.
4. On 30 December 2002 the defendant was the driver of a hire car travelling towards Darwin along the Stuart Highway. Her friends were passengers in the vehicle.
5. At about 5.15pm on 30 December 2002, in a monsoonal downpour, the defendant began driving across the Manton Dam bridge. The vehicle encountered a large sheet of water flowing across the Stuart Highway.
6. The defendant's vehicle was travelling at approximately 100-kms per hour at that stage.
7. Shortly before clearing the bridge, the vehicle aquaplaned and the defendant lost control of the car, which then spun off the Stuart Highway. In the course of spinning, the vehicle impacted against a tree and came to a standstill approximately 6-metres from the edge of the Stuart Highway.
8. As a consequence, the defendant was charged with driving at a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sang Fu Lim v Hales and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NTSC 18
Decision Date: 08/04/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was asked to consider a series of questions reserved under the Justices Act regarding the proceedings against Sang Fu Lim. Sang Fu Lim, a resident of Victoria, was charged with dangerous driving in the Northern Territory after an accident in December 2002. She had appeared through counsel and was absent from court. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction was uncertain about how to proceed due to the potential for disqualification from holding a driver's licence and the possibility of imprisonment. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if it could consider these questions of law without a plea or admitted facts.

The legal issues centered on whether the Supreme Court could address the questions without a plea and admitted facts, the requirements for a case stated under the Justices Act, and the implications of disqualifying a person from holding a driver's licence if they held a licence from another jurisdiction. The court also examined if the Court of Summary Jurisdiction had the discretion to require the defendant's personal appearance for certain orders.

Bailey J found that the case stated did not comply with the Justices Regulations, as no plea had been taken and no facts had been received or admitted. The Supreme Court could not consider hypothetical or academic questions, nor could it entertain questions that were not purely points of law. The case had not reached a stage where questions could arise from the complaint against Sang Fu Lim. Bailey J declined to answer the questions and made no orders, noting that the case stated was not amendable. The judge provided brief observations on certain aspects of the questions, including the entitlement of counsel to enter a plea, the absence of a requirement for personal appearance in court for licence disqualification, and the limited applicability of certain regulations to non-Northern Territory licences.

Orders