Vaclav Step v Sharon Hinton

[2012] HCASL 84

VACLAV STEP

v

SHARON HINTON
[2012] HCASL 84
D2/2012

1. The applicant is a third-year law student. He was convicted in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of the Northern Territory (Carey SM) of trespass after direction to leave, contrary to s 7(1) of the Trespass Act (NT). The lands on which he was held to have trespassed were two unalienated parcels of Crown land. The applicant had been living on those lands since 2001.

2. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Southwood J dismissed the appeal. His Honour agreed with Carey SM that the applicant had not obtained title by adverse possession, though he rested this conclusion on a different statutory provision, namely s 6(4) of the Limitation Act (NT). It provided:

   "Notwithstanding any law or enactment now or formerly in force in the Territory, the right, title or interest of the Crown to or in land shall not be and shall be deemed not to have been in any way affected by reason of the possession of such land adverse to the Crown for any period."

3. The applicant then appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory. Riley CJ, Kelly and Barr JJ dismissed the appeal for the same reason as Southwood J. They also relied on s 4 of the Crown Lands Act (NT). It provided that, subject to limited exceptions, Crown lands can only be alienated pursuant to that Act.

4. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The primary ground relied on is that s 6(4) of the Limitation Act and s 4 of the Crown Lands Act are insufficiently clear to prevent the applicant from obtaining a "presumed possessory interest in the land".  The legislation is not ambiguous.  The provisions leave no room for the applicant to succeed.

5. The application for special leave must be dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
20 June 2012 V.M. Bell