Willoughy v Trenerry - [2000] NTSC 57

Willoughy v Trenerry [2000] NTSC 57
PARTIES:WILLOUGHY, Brett Graham
v

TRENERRY, Robin Laurence

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 20/99
DELIVERED:  13 JULY 2000
HEARING DATES:  25 MAY 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – general principles – interference with discretion of Court Below – uncontroverted facts –
R v Storey (1998) 1 VR 359 at 371, applied
R v Olbrich (1999) 166 ALR 330, applied
Criminal law – property offences – whether offence occurred “where goods are sold” – whether offender “lawfully in the premises”.
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) Sch I, Div 6 of Pt 3, s 5(2), s 20, “property”, s 3
Dureau & Anor v Trenerry, unreported, 23 October 1998, applied.
Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338, applied.
Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Limited [1936] AC 65 at 69, considered.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Mr Lewis
Respondent:  Ms Austin
Solicitors:
Appellant:Withnall Maley
Respondent:  DPP
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:  mar20017
Number of pages:  12

Mar20017
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Willoughy v Trenerry [2000] NTSC 57
No. JA 20/99

BETWEEN:
BRETT GRAHAM WILLOUGHY

Appellant
AND:
ROBIN LAURENCE TRENERRY

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 July 2000)

Appeal against the mandatory sentence of 14 days imprisonment, for stealing property valued at $2.04, imposed upon the respondent by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction sitting in Darwin on 13 April 1999.

The Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) provides for the minimum mandatory imprisonment for “property offences” (Div 6 of Pt 3). A property offence means an offence specified in Sch I to the Act that is committed after 8 March 1997 (s 3). The schedule prescribes an offence against s 210 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT), stealing, but makes exceptions where:
(a) the offence occurred at premises, or a place, where goods are sold;
(b)the offence was not part of a single criminal enterprise during which the offender committed an offence against Pt VI of the Criminal Code;
(c)the offender was lawfully in the premises or at the place at the time of the offence; and
(d)the offender was not employed at the premises or place at the time of the offence.
It is submitted by the appellant, and not contested by the respondent, that the prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant did not come within one of the conjoined exceptions if the limitation on the sentencing discretion of the court under Div 6 of Pt 3 is not to be removed. In Dureau & Anor v Trenerry, unreported, 23 October 1998, Mildren J noted that the Magistrate in that case held that the onus was on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that at least one of the elements in the schedule was negatived. That was not called in question in that case, nor this.
In this case, it is said…

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 Willoughy v Trenerry

Details

AGLC: Willoughy v Trenerry [2000] NTSC 57
Case: [2000] NTSC 57
Decision Date: 13 JULY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Willoughy v Trenerry was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision made by the trial judge in relation to a dispute regarding the ownership of certain property. The primary judge had ruled in favour of the defendant, Trenerry, finding that the property in question was rightfully owned by him. Willoughy, the plaintiff, appealed this decision on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence and failed to consider relevant facts.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal revolved around the principles governing appellate review and the appropriate circumstances in which the Court may interfere with the findings of fact made by the trial judge. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge's findings were open to challenge given the evidence presented, and if the primary judge had indeed overlooked material facts that would have altered the outcome of the case.

The Court of Appeal, in delivering its judgment, emphasised that appellate courts should generally refrain from overturning findings of fact made by the trial judge unless it can be demonstrated that the primary judge had made an error that was material to the outcome of the case. In this instance, the Court found that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis for interference with the primary judge's exercise of discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

As a result of the Court of Appeal's decision, the orders made by the trial judge remained in place, confirming Trenerry's ownership of the disputed property. The Court further clarified that appeals on questions of fact should be approached with caution and only allowed in cases where there is a clear and manifest error in the assessment of evidence or an omission of material facts that influenced the trial judge's decision.

Orders