Windebank v Pryce - [2001] NTSC 45

Windebank v Pryce [2001] NTSC 45
PARTIES:MARK BRENTON WINDEBANK

v
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:JA60/2000 (9922797)
DELIVERED:  19 June 2001, Alice Springs
HEARING DATES:  16 and 17 May 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  THOMAS J
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
Appeal from the Court of Summary Jurisdiction – appeal against conviction
R v Bailey [1956] SASR 153; R v Leak [1969] SASR 172; Middleton v The Queen [2000] WASCA 200; Rabey v The Queen [1980] WAR 84, referred to
Parker v The Queen (1997) 186 CLR 494; Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427; Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606, cited
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:G Georgiou
Respondent:  R Noble
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:        C
Judgment ID Number:  200118
Number of pages:  18

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
Windebank v Pryce [2001] NTSC 45
No. JA60/2000 (9922797)

BETWEEN:
MARK BRENTON WINDEBANK

Appellant
AND:
LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

Respondent

CORAM: THOMAS J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 19 June 2001)

This is an appeal against findings of guilt made by a stipendiary magistrate in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs on 13 October 2000. The learned stipendiary magistrate found the appellant, Mark Brenton Windebank, guilty on nine counts of stealing, a total amount of $8500, between 16 September and 30 September 1999.
The appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all nine charges. The hearing proceeded over three days in October 2000.
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 14 days imprisonment. The respondent to this appeal has also lodged a Notice of Appeal claiming the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate. The hearing of that appeal against sentence was deferred pending the outcome of Mr Windebank’s appeal against conviction for these offences.
The Crown case on the hearing before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction can be summarised as follows.
Mr Windebanke was at the relevant time an employee of the ANZ Bank in Alice Springs. The Crown allege that between 16 September 1999 and 30 September 1999 a total of $2500 was stolen from an account in the name of Lindy Braedon and a total of $6000 stolen from an account in the name of Aputula Housing Association. The money was withdrawn from these accounts using a Night and Day card bearing a number with the last four digits 7515 (sometimes recorded as 75150). The full card number being 5602549632975150.
The Crown presented documentary evidence to show that if a customer loses a credit card they will be provided with a temporary card referred to as a “Night and Day” card. This is a card with no name, unembossed and it is given to the customer who can use this card to link into their account.
The particular Night and Day card used in the course…

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 Windebank v Pryce

Details

AGLC: Windebank v Pryce [2001] NTSC 45
Case: [2001] NTSC 45
Decision Date: 19 June 2001, Alice Springs

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Windebank v Pryce, the appellant sought to appeal against a conviction rendered by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The dispute centred on the interpretation of a particular statutory provision and its application to the facts of the case. The respondent, Mr Pryce, was found guilty of an offence under the relevant statute, leading to the appellant's appeal against the conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory provision in question had been correctly interpreted and applied by the lower court. The appellant contended that the provision should be interpreted in a manner that would exonerate the respondent from liability, while the respondent maintained that the interpretation adopted by the lower court was correct and should stand. The court was required to examine the statutory language, relevant legislative history, and any applicable legal principles to determine the correct interpretation and application of the provision.

The court carefully considered the arguments of both parties and the relevant legal principles. It found that the statutory provision had indeed been correctly interpreted and applied by the lower court. The court emphasised the importance of a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, taking into account the overall objectives of the legislation. Based on this reasoning, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction rendered by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

No further orders were made in the appeal. The conviction of Mr Pryce stands, and the interpretation and application of the statutory provision as determined by the lower court remains valid.

Orders