The King v Price - [2025] NTSC 50

CITATION:The King v Price [2025] NTSC 50
PARTIES:THE KING
v

PRICE, Caroline

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:22308246
DELIVERED:  1 May 2025
HEARING DATE:  9 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  Huntingford J

CATCHWORDS:
CRIME – Basha inquiry – Whether Basha inquiry should be allowed – Whether a Basha Inquiry was consented to at the Criminal Call-over – Fundamental test for allowing Basha inquiry – Serious risk trial would be unfair – Proposed cross-examination of complainant predicated upon anticipated version of events – Basha inquiry is not the place to cross-examine complainant as to matters of credit – Application for Basha inquiry dismissed.
Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1928 (NT) s105H.

R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337, R v Swan [2024] NTSC 82, R v Sandford (1994) 72 A Crim R 160, R v Trong Ruen Bui (2011) 210 A Crim R 338, R v Greenfield [2023] NSWSC 1386
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:A Lonergan
Accused:S Lapinski
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Centre Legal NT
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Hun2505
Number of pages:  15

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The King vPrice [2025] NTSC 50

22308246

BETWEEN:

THE KING

AND:

CAROLINE PRICE

CORAM: HUNTINGFORD J
REASONS FOR RULING
(Delivered 1 May 2025)
Background

On 1 May 2025 I dismissed an application by the accused to hold a Basha inquiry. These are the reasons for that ruling.
The accused is charged with one count of aggravated unlawful entry of the complainant’s residence and one count of robbery. Both offences are alleged to have been committed on 9 March 2023.
The complainant is a 78-year-old man who is confined to a wheelchair. There is no medical evidence as to the complainant’s health however, the complainant’s police statement of 9 March 2023 says that the contents were read to him because of “Alzheimer’s Disease”. The Crown, at the time of the hearing of this application, had not made an application that the complainant be declared a vulnerable witness.
The Crown case is that the accused unlawfully entered the complainant’s unit at about 6pm on 9 March 2023. The complainant was watching TV in the loungeroom. The Crown allege that the accused knocked on the door and, when the complainant opened it, pushed her way in and tipped him out of his wheelchair. The accused is then said to have grabbed the complainant by the shirt collar and dragged him into his room, and thrown him onto the bed. She then went to a fridge and removed four beers, before taking his cigarettes from his pocket. The complainant also alleges that a small silver tomahawk was taken.
The complainant says in his statement of 9 March 2023 that he recognised the accused, although he didn’t know her name, because she was the same person who had smashed his window nine months earlier.
The accused intends to plead…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: The King v Price [2025] NTSC 50
Case: [2025] NTSC 50
Decision Date: 1 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King v Price is a case heard by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, which involves a dispute between the Crown and the accused, Price, who is charged with robbery. The Crown alleges that Price entered the complainant’s unit uninvited and stole his property. The accused claims that she was invited into the complainant’s unit and was therefore not a trespasser. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the accused should be granted a Basha hearing, a pre-trial hearing where the complainant is cross-examined, to obtain further information about the complainant's credibility and the nature of their relationship.

The court considered the arguments presented by the defence, which sought to use the Basha hearing to explore whether the complainant had transactional sexual relationships with Aboriginal women, including the accused, and to gather information about the complainant's prior allegations against other women. The defence argued that this information was necessary for preparing their case and ensuring a fair trial. The court, however, held that the defence's request for a Basha hearing did not meet the high threshold required to justify such a hearing. The court emphasised that a Basha hearing is not a ‘dry run’ for the defence, nor is it a substitute for deficiencies in the police investigation or an opportunity to discredit the complainant. The court concluded that simply wanting more information about the complainant was not a sufficient ground for a Basha hearing.

The court ruled against the defence's application for a Basha hearing, noting that the defence had not provided solid grounds for supposing that the cross-examination would significantly contribute to achieving a fair trial. The court held that the defence's request did not meet the necessary standard and that the inability to pursue these purposes did not risk an unfair trial. The court did not grant the Basha hearing, and the case will proceed to trial without the complainant being cross-examined at a Basha hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Solid grounds must be advanced for supposing that the cross-examination will make a significant contribution to the achievement of a fair trial. The bar is a high one. A Basha process is not a ‘dry run’ for the defence. Nor is it an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant as to matters of credit. The mere fact that an accused would like more information than is available in witness statements is not enough. Nor is a Basha inquiry a substitute for perceived inadequacies in a police investigation.[7] Those things are also not part of the purpose of a committal hearing and inability to pursue those purposes does not run a risk of an unfair trial. Consideration The basis upon which defence seek a Basha in this matter is that the accused seeks evidence as to whether the complainant was engaging in a transactional sexual arrangement (sex in exchange for alcohol and cigarettes) with Ms Price on the day she is alleged to have robbed him. Defence counsel argued that the accused does not deny that she was in the complainant’s unit. She says that she was invited in and was therefore not a trespasser, noting that her presence as a trespasser is element of count 1. The issues which the defence seek to pursue on the Basha are:a)Whether the complainant has been having transactional sexual interactions with other Aboriginal women. This is said to be context evidence, and potentially tendency evidence, although the potential tendency was not clearly identified;b)Whether the accused has had an intimate relationship with the accused and the nature of that relationship; andc)Allegations the complainant has made against other women in the statements referred to in the period September 2022 to May 2023, and whether the complainant was having sexual relationships with those women. That is said to be relevant to a coincidence notice. Defence counsel argued that that information is not in the brief and is therefore a proper subject for a Basha and also that it is necessary that the complainant be cross-examined in order that the defence properly prepare for trial. In that regard the defence also say that the defendant’s relationship with the accused, and with other Aboriginal women, is context evidence which would make it more likely that the accused’s evidence about what happened is accepted. Defence counsel said in argument that it is almost certain that the accused would give evidence in the trial. This is not a case where there is an allegation that the Crown have failed to give sufficient particulars of the offending. In such matters there is authority for the proposition that a Basha may be used to cure the deficiency.[8] Something more than a mere disadvantage to the accused from loss of opportunity to cross-examine the complainant must be shown. There must be some feature of the case which take it out of the ordinary and which establishes that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the complainant to give evidence at a Basha. Simply wishing to discredit the witness at trial is not a sufficient reason.