The King v EM - [2025] NTSC 31

CITATION:The King v EM [2025] NTSC 31
PARTIES:THE KING

v

EM

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22402829
DELIVERED:  9 May 2025
HEARING DATE:  9 May 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  Reeves J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Bail – Application for bail pending sentencing hearing – Defendant pleaded guilty to an offence to which the presumption against bail under
s 7A(1) of the Bail Act (NT) applies - Defendant charged with sexual intercourse without consent or being reckless as to the lack of consent – Youth offender – Consideration of recent amendments to the Bail Act – Whether judge satisfied defendant has discharged onus to overcome presumption under s 7A(2) – Consideration of requirement in ss 7A(2AA) and 24(1)(aa) that the risk to the safety of the community be the paramount consideration in determining whether onus discharged – Whether having regard to the nature and seriousness of his offending the defendant has provided sufficient information to allow that risk to be assessed - Held the defendant’s application for bail refused

Bail Act 1982 (NT), s 3A , s 7A, , s 24, s 24A, s 32, s 78(2)(b)
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 192(3)
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT), s 69
Blackwell v Bara [2022] NTSC 17; R v Ubonrat (unreported NTSC 15 July 2022); R v     Wilson [2011] NTSC 15; Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR; Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3 ; Storie v Storie (1945) 80 CLR 597; Suttie v The Queen [2013] NTSC 37; The Queen v JDT [2011] NTSC 39; The Queen v Tirak (unreported NTSC 27 May 2019; The Queen v Williams [2012] NTSC 47; The Queen v Wilson-Anderson [2020] NTSC 53 referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:  P Williams
Defendant: G Chipkin
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:Territory Criminal Lawyers
Judgment category classification:     B
Judgment ID Number:  Ree2501
Number of pages:  8

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The King v EM [2025] NTSC 31
No. 22402829

BETWEEN:
THE KING
v
EM

CORAM: Reeves J
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered ex tempore 9 May 2025)

[1]On 9 May 2025 I refused EM’s application for bail and remanded him in custody pending receipt of a report under s 69 of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT). At the time I said that I would publish my reasons for that decision. The following are those reasons.
Plea of guilty
[2]EM first appeared before me on the afternoon of 8 May 2025 and entered a plea of guilty to the following offence: that on 2 November 2023 at Alice Springs he had sexual intercourse with RJ without her consent knowing about or being reckless as to the lack of consent contrary to s 192(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT).
[3]The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment.
The…

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 The King v EM

Details

AGLC: The King v EM [2025] NTSC 31
Case: [2025] NTSC 31
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King v EM involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to an offence of sexual intercourse without consent or being reckless as to the lack of consent. The defendant, a youth offender, had applied for bail pending his sentencing hearing. The case was heard in the Northern Territory Magistrates Court. The key issue before the court was whether the defendant had successfully discharged the onus to overcome the presumption against bail, as stipulated in section 7A(2) of the Bail Act (NT), considering the nature and seriousness of the offence.

The court had to consider recent amendments to the Bail Act, which introduced a requirement that the risk to the safety of the community be the paramount consideration in determining whether the onus had been discharged. This required the court to thoroughly assess the risk posed by the defendant to the community. The defendant had to provide sufficient information to allow the court to assess this risk adequately. The court found that the defendant had not provided enough information to adequately assess the risk to the safety of the community, and therefore, the onus was not discharged.

Consequently, the court refused the defendant’s application for bail. The decision highlights the stringent considerations the court must make when dealing with serious offences, particularly those involving sexual violence, and the importance of providing comprehensive information to overcome the presumption against bail. The refusal of bail underscores the seriousness of the offence and the need to ensure the safety of the community.

Orders