Step v Hinton

The case of Step v Hinton involved the appellant, who occupied sections 1659 and 1660 of the Hundred of Ayers, Northern Territory, from 2001 without a lease, licence, or permission from the Crown. The appellant erected a dwelling and other structures, asserting a possessory interest in the land. After being notified to vacate, the appellant was prosecuted for trespassing under the Trespass Act. The appellant argued that he had a possessory interest in the land due to adverse possession, which he claimed dispossessed the Crown.

The primary legal issue was whether the appellant had acquired a possessory title enforceable against all the world except a person with a better title, specifically the Crown. The court had to determine if the appellant's actions constituted adverse possession under the law, and if so, whether such a possessory interest could override the Crown's estate in the land. The relevant statutes in question included sections 6(4) of the Limitation Act and the provisions of the Trespass Act.

The Supreme Court found that while the trial magistrate erred in relying on section 198 of the Land Title Act, which does not apply to unalienated Crown land, the magistrate's ultimate conclusion was correct. Section 6(4) of the Limitation Act precluded the appellant from acquiring any estate or interest adverse to the Crown. The court held that any possessory interest the appellant might have had could only be effective against non-Crown entities and could not defeat the Crown's interest. Consequently, the appellant remained a trespasser, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction for trespassing under the Trespass Act was upheld.