Wanambi v Edwards - [2010] NTSC 43

Wanambi v Edwards [2010] NTSC 43

PARTIES: PHILEMON WANAMBI
v
MELINDA JANE EDWARDS
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
EXERCISING APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
FILE NO: JA 20 of 2010 (21011327)
DELIVERED: EX TEMPORE
HEARING DATES: 27 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF: SOUTHWOOD J
APPEAL FROM: TRIGG M
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Justices Appeal – appeal against conviction – assault of police officer – resisting a member of the police force in the execution of his duty – whether lawful apprehension under Mental Health and Related Services Act s 32A – no error by the Magistrate – apprehension lawful – appeal dismissed
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:

Appellant: C Bala
Respondent: S Geary
Solicitors:

Appellant: North Australian Aboriginal Justice
Agency
Respondent: Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions
Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: Sou1008
Number of pages: 4
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Wanambi v Edwards [2010] NTSC 43
No. JA 20 of 2010 (21011327)
BETWEEN:
PHILEMON WANAMBI
Appellant:

AND:
MELINDA JANE EDWARDS
Respondent:

CORAM: SOUTHWOOD J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore on 27 August 2010)

Introduction

On 23 June 2010, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction found the appellant guilty of unlawfully assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty contrary to s 189A of the Criminal Code, and of resisting a member of the police force in the execution of his duty contrary to s 158 of the Police Administration Act. The prosecution case was that the police officer, who is said to be the victim of the appellant’s crimes, was acting under the provisions of s 32A of the Mental Health and Related Services Act[1]. The police had received a complaint that the appellant was attempting to commit suicide and the police officer in question had apprehended the appellant so they could bring him to a medical practitioner for assessment under s 33 of the Act. After the appellant was apprehended by police, he assaulted the victim and resisted police.
The appellant appeals against his conviction. The sole ground of appeal is:
The learned trial Magistrate erred in finding that the apprehension of not required to be completed once the appellant was apprehended and before bringing of the appellant to the practitioner had commenced.
the appellant was lawful, in particular, the learned Magistrate erred
in interpreting section 32A(4) of the Mental Health and Related

[3]	person that he or she has been apprehended for the purposes of an

The principal question in the appeal is: Must a police officer inform a person to the medical practitioner for assessment? In my opinion, the answer to this question is no and the appeal should be dismissed.

[4]	(1) the apprehension of the person must take place on reasonable grounds; (2) the police officer should bring the person to a practitioner for assessment

The learned trial Magistrate correctly interpreted s 32A of the Act to mean: an assessment, the police…

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 Wanambi v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Wanambi v Edwards [2010] NTSC 43
Case: [2010] NTSC 43
Decision Date: 11/08/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was called upon to hear an appeal in the case of Wanambi v Edwards. The appellant, Philemon Wanambi, appealed against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and for resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. The police officer had apprehended the appellant under the Mental Health and Related Services Act, and the appellant had subsequently assaulted and resisted the officer. The principal issue before the court was whether the police officer was required to inform the appellant that he had been apprehended for the purposes of an assessment by a practitioner under the Act before the process of bringing the appellant to the practitioner had commenced.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and concluded that the police officer was not required to inform the appellant of the reason for his apprehension before the process of bringing the appellant to the practitioner had commenced. The court found that the plain reading of the text of the Act indicated that the apprehended person is to be informed of the reason for their apprehension before they are delivered to the practitioner. The court further found that this interpretation was consistent with the principle of the Act that a person is to be provided with appropriate information about their proposed treatment. The court held that the learned trial Magistrate had not erred in finding that the apprehension of the appellant was lawful.

The appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of providing appropriate information to individuals who are being apprehended under the Mental Health and Related Services Act, but also clarifies that this information does not need to be provided before the process of bringing the individual to the practitioner has commenced.

Orders