Legal Research
Cases
ZL v Lyons

ZL v Lyons

Case [2024] NTSC 49 4 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:ZL v Lyons [2024] NTSC 49
PARTIES:ZL

v
LYONS, Mark Richard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 21/2023 (22321968)
DELIVERED:  4 June 2024
HEARING DATES:  30 April 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Blokland J

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL – Youth Justice Court – sentencing – appeal against the imposition
of a conviction – offender placed on good behaviour bond for 12 months –
domestic violence order imposed – offence of assault with circumstances
of aggravation – whether Local Court Judge erred by characterising the
offending as ‘very adult offending’ and imposing a conviction –
whether conviction was manifestly excessive - appeal allowed – on
ground one – ground two manifestly excessive not made out – conviction set
aside.
Statutes
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 188(2).

Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act 1992 (NT)
Sentencing Act, s 78DD
Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT), s 3(c), s 144(1), s 83(1)(f)
AEM, KEM and MM [2002] NSWCCA 58; AK v The Queen [2021] NTCCA
4; Bloomfield [1999] NTCCA 137; Cook v Nash and Mc Garvie [2007]
NTSC 14; Cranssen v The King (1936) 55 CLR; DD v Cahill [2009] NTSC
62; DN v Burns [2020] NTSC 12; Edmond & Moreen v The Queen [2017]
NTCCA 9; Forrest v The Queen [2017] NTCCA 5; Girrabul v The Queen
[2003] NTSC 101; Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459; Hawkins (1993) 67 A
Crim R 64; KT v The Queen (2008) 182 A Crim R 571; LA v Kennedy [2007]
NTSC 36; Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391; Pham & Lee (1991) 55 A Crim
R 128; R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112; R v Goodwin [2003] NTCCA 9;
Rv Smith [1964] Crim LR 70; R v Wurramara [1999] NTCCA 45; Richards
v The Queen [2024] NTCCA 14; SE v Mancini [2023] NTSC 96; TM v R
[2017] NTCCA 3; Verity v SB [2011] NTSC 26; Wild v Balchin [2009]
NTSC 53; referred to.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J. McHugh
Respondent:  T. Gooley
Solicitors:
Appellant:Territory Criminal Lawyers
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  BLO2406
Number of pages:  25

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
ZL v Lyons [2024] NTSC 49

No. LCA 21/2023 (22321968)
BETWEEN:

ZL

Appellant

AND:

MARK RICHARD LYONS

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 4 June 2024)

This is an appeal against the imposition of a conviction by the Youth Justice Court sitting in Tennant Creek on 14 August 2023. The appeal is brought pursuant to section 144 (1) of the Youth Justice Act 2005 (NT) (‘the Act’).
Proceedings in the Youth Justice Court
On 14 August 2023 the appellant entered a plea of guilty to one charge of aggravated assault. The circumstances of aggravation were that the assault caused harm and the victim was threatened with an offensive weapon, namely rocks, contrary to…

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 ZL v Lyons

Details

AGLC: ZL v Lyons [2024] NTSC 49
Case: [2024] NTSC 49
Decision Date: 4 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ZL v Lyons, the appellant, ZL, appealed against the decision of the Youth Justice Court which sentenced him to a good behaviour bond for 12 months and imposed a domestic violence order following a charge of assault with circumstances of aggravation. The appeal centred on the Youth Justice Court's characterisation of the offence as 'very adult offending' and the imposition of a conviction, which ZL argued was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Youth Justice Court had erred in characterising the offending as'very adult offending' and whether the imposition of a conviction was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining if the Youth Justice Court had applied the correct legal principles in sentencing ZL and if the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Youth Justice Court had indeed erred in characterising the offence as'very adult offending'. The court considered that this characterisation had influenced the imposition of a conviction, which was ultimately found to be manifestly excessive. The court held that the Youth Justice Court had not adequately considered the principles of youth justice and the mitigating factors present in ZL's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on ground one, and the conviction was set aside. The court did not find it necessary to address the second ground of appeal, as the first ground was determinative of the outcome.

Orders