l
r	Pryce v. Ashfield

L

l.	Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia Nader J.

L

11, 25 June 1986 at Darwin

r

Courts - jurisdiction - Juvenile Court (NT) - age of p rson charged - Juvenile Justice Act (NT) 1983 - ss.3, 20, 22, 23,

,

25, 53, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 -
Justices Act (NT) 1928 s. 162

[

.	Courts - Summary Jurisdiction - jurisdiction to state case as to jurisdiction - appropriate course to test jurisdiction by prerogative writ - Juvenile Justice Act (NT) 1983 ss. 3, 20, 22, 23, 25, 53, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 -
Justices Act (NT) 1928 s. 162

[

Criminal law - Juvenile Court - jurisdiction - age of person charged - Juvenile Justice Act (NT) 1983 ss.3, 20, 22, 23,
25, 53, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 - Justices Act
(NT) 1928 s.162
f		Child - criminal law - courts - jurisdiction - Juvenile Court (NT) - age of person charged -
L	Juvenile Justice Act (NT) 1928 s.162

[	 	  	

Cases referred to:

Seears v Oldfield 36 NTR 65

L

L		Counsel for Appellant Solicitor for Appellant
Counsel for Respondent
C	Solicitor for Respondent
[J
nad860158

.

L
/
/
I.

:	D. Wallace
N.T. Crown
M. Jones
Australian Legal Aid Service

-f
IN THE SUPREME COURT

L

OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
L	No. 288 of 1986
1'

IN THE MATTER of the Justices Act (NT) 1928, as amended "

I
[
[
['
L

L	 	  	  

L

CORAM:	NADER J

AND IN THE MATTER of a Special Case stated for the opinion of the Court

BETWEEN:

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE
Plaintiff

AND:

PAUL ANTHONY ASHFIELD
Defep.dant

L

[

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(delivered 25 June 1986)
[

L

This is a special case stated by Mr A.S.G. Hook, Stipendiary Magistrate, pursuant to s.162 of the
Justices Act (NT).	The facts and questions are best set
[_	forth in the terms of the special case:
,/
I

1--

,f
[
i-
r
f
I C L L L
r
L L [
[
L
L

'

/
l

'1.	The informant has laid certain informations against the Defendant relating to nine alleged offences of unlawful entry and sixteen alleged offences of stealing.	The informations are pursuant to the provisions of the Justices Act and were laid on or after the 22nd day of January 1986.

The informations came on for hearing before me on the 11th day of February 1986.	Senior Constable
P. Thomas appeared for the Informant and Mr M. Jones appeared for the Defendant.	At the outset, I was informed that the Defendant would object to the court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin dealing with some of the offences.

When the matter was next heard by me on the 18th day of February 1986, the following points were agreed by both parties:

The Defendant was born on the 24th day of August 1968 and attained the age of 17 years on the 24th day of August 1985;

The Defendant was interviewed by Police and arrested in respect of the various offences on the 10th day of January, 1986.	At that time the Defendant was 17 years of age and therefore was not a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act.
.	.
The charges against the defendant fall into three groups:
Group "A" being charges 1 - 6;
These offences are alleged to have been committed before the 24th day of August, 1985. The Defendant being a juvenile at the time the offences were committed;
Group "B":	being charges 7 - 11;
These offences are alleged to have been committed on or between the 1st day of July, 1985 and the 31st day of December, 1985, the Defendant may have been a juvenile at the time some or all of the offences were committed;
Group "C" being charges 12 - 25;
These offences are alleged to have been committed after the 24th day of August, 1985, the Defendant not being a juvenile at the time the offences were committed.

2

-r
!-
r
L
f-

ri

f

_.J

[
L
l _ L L L [
[
·'
L L
/
/
L
I
I

In relation to the offences included in Group "B". the Informant was unable to confine the dates of the offences more precisely.

On the 18th day of February, 1986, the Defendant by his Counsel Mr M. Jones objected to the jurisdiction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction concerning those offences categorised in paragraph
4 above as Groups 11 A" and "B".

Pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Juvenile Justices Act, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction ceases to have jurisdiction in relation to a matter in which the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction.	Under Section 19(a} of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction, inter alia, "to hear and determine ....11       all charges, .... against a juvenile for having committed an offence;	"

Section 3(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act defines a "juvenile" as 11 a child who has not attained the age of 17 years"

Having·regard to the above, I formed the view that the Defendant was a juvenile when the offences included in Group "A 11  were committed.	Further, the Defendant may have been a juvenile when the offences included in Group "B11      were committed. Further, that the Defendant was not a juvenile:
When he was interviewed by Police;
When he was arrested;
When the informations were laid; nor
When he appeared before me.
For the purposes of the questions of law below

"adult" means a person other than a person who is a juvenile as defined in Section 3(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act; and

11 offence 11 means an offence which if committed by an adult, could properly be heard and determined by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

The question of law which I desire to state for the opinion of the Supreme Court is as follows:

Where an adult is charged with an offence which is alleged to have been committed by him when he was a juvenile, is the Court of Summary Jurisdiction deprived of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge?

3

r

r,

If "yes" to (a) above, where an adult is charged with an offence which is alleged to have been committed by him between certain dates, and the defendant was a juvenile during part of the period between those dates, is the Court of Summary Jurisdiction deprived of
f	jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge?

['

L

If "yes" to either (a) or (b) above, where a juvenile is charged with an offence, and that juvenile becomes an adult before the Juvenile Court has determined that charge, does t e Court of Summary Jurisdiction have jurisdiction to determine the matter?
If "yes" to either (a) or (b) above, where an adult is interviewd (sic) by Police in
f	relation to an offence in circumstances where

[

[

the Police suspect that the offence was or may have been committed by that adult when he was a juvenile, do the restrictions imposed by Section 25 of the Juvenile Justice Act apply to that interview?'

r

r

l .

Although it was not raised at the hearing and its significance did not occur to me until I set about considering my reasons, it is necessary to say something about the form of the questions referred to this court.	The Justices Act, by section 162, confers upon a Court of Summary Jurisdiction the power to 'resolve any question of
[,		law arising on or out of the hearing or determination of any information or complaint for the consideration of the
[	Supreme Court, and state a special case or cases for the opinion of the Court.'	That section also provides, inter
[	alia, that the Supreme Court may amend a special case:

l

subsection (3).	Although the questions are to be questions of law,-they ought not to be couched in abstract terms, such
L	that the court is compelled to give answers which on the face of them provide a judicial opinion of general
l
, I
l.

r		application.	The question ought, in an appropriate way, to relate specifically to the facts set forth in the special
f	case.	In the present matter the distinction is not merely of academic interest.	Question 'a' clearly picks up the

r

[	Group "A" charges: 1 - 6.	However, question 'b' differs in
content from the description of the Group "B" charges: 7 -

r

11, to which it appears to be intended to relate, and is not sufficiently specific to warrant an answer by this court in
l .
its present form.	Question 1 c' presents difficulty because
L	it appears, aliis verbis, to ask the same question as is
[	asked by question 'a'.	Accordingly, I propose to exercise the power conferred by subsection (3) of section 162 of the
[	Justices Act to amend the special case in the expectation that the amended questions and the answers to them will

L.

-L

provide his Worship with sufficient guidance in the circumstances.	In lieu of questions 'a', 'b', 'c' and 'd',
I substitute the following:
[

['

[

Does the Court of Summary Jurisdiction possess jurisdiction _to proceed to hear and determine the charges against the defendant comprised in Group "A":	Charges 1 - 6?

Does the said Court possess jurisdiction to proceed to hear and determine the charges against the defendant comprised in Group "B":	Charges 7 - 11?
[	c.	When the defendant was interviewed by Police,

C

namely, on 10 January 1986, did the restrictions imposed by section 25 of the Juvenile Justices Act apply to the interview?

L		The matter raised by question 'a' is clear.	It was dealt with by Muirhead J. in Seears v. Oldfield 36 NTR 65 at p.70.
L	His Honour said:
, /
L

L

l

r·

I am satisfied that the age of the person charged when he or she committed the alleged offence is the critical test of the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.'
r-

f

Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act provides, inter alia,
that the jurisdiction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the Justices Act ceases to exist in relation to a
r	matter in which the Juvenile  Court has jurisdiction.	The
L		answer to question 'a' must therefore be 'No'.	However, the question cannot be formally answered because the learned

[

C	magistrate, not being seized of the matters comprised in Group "A" by reason of want of jurisdiction, was without
jurisdiction to state a case in relation to those charges.
r·	Accordingly, I decline to answer question 'a'.
r	The answer to question 'b' depends in part upon the

L

same principle governing question 'a'.	The question that must be asked in order to determine jurisdiction is whether
[	the alleged offender was a juvenile at the time of the
alleged commission of the offences.	In the present case,

[

L		the question cannot be answered simply.	The alleged offences, or some of them, might have been committed when
the alleged offender was a juvenile;	all or some of them
[	might have been committed when he had become an adult.
Section-3 of the Juvenile Justice Act defines juvenile as:
L
'(a) A child who has not attained the age of 17
years; or
r	-
r I I

l
[:	(b) in the absence of proof as to age, a child who apparently has not attained the age of 17
t:	years.'

r

r	The learned magistrate was left with no more than the
possibility, albeit a real one, that all of the Group "B 11

L

charges were committed when the alleged offender was a juvenile.	Not having been referred to any authority on the point and, for that reason, confining my reasoning to the
L	case at bar, I believe that it should be resolved by
reference to general principle.	The differences between the

[

[		jurisdictions of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Juvenile Court are not merely procedural.	An examination of
the relevant legislation reveals differences between the
L		jurisdictions such that, in general, it is more favourable to an alleged offender to be tried in the Juvenile Court
[	than in the Court of  Summary Jurisdiction.	Reference may be
["	had to section 22 (power to close court), section 23 (publication of proceedings), section 53 (punishments etc.)
[	and sections 62-70 (relating to detention centres).	This list is not intended in any sense to be exhaustive.	The
[	whole thrust of the Juvenile Justices Act is to provide for an environment emphasizing care and reform rather than
[	punishment.	I think it is proper, therefore, to resolve the

L

jurisdictional doubt in favour of the defendant and to proceed-as if he were a juvenile at the time of the alleged
L	commission of all the alleged offences comprised in Group "B".	Again, if I had jurisdiction to do so, I would answer
L	question 'b' 'No'.
, I
L

L
Question 'c' involves the construction of section
L	25 of  the Juvenile Justice Act.	It is sufficient to set out

L

subsection 1:

r-

'25. JUVENILES NOT TO BE INTERVIEWED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

[

Subject to sub-sections (2) and (3); where a member of the Police Force or other person with the power to arrest believes, on reasonable grounds, that a juvenile -
L	(a)		has committed an offence which, if committed by an adult, is punishable by

C

imprisonment for 12 months or longer; or
is implicated in the commission of such
[	an offence,

[

the member or that other person shall not interview the juvenile in respect of an offence or cause the juvenile to do anything in connection with the investigation of an offence -

[

unless a person who is not a juvenile or a member of the Police Force but is -

[

a parent or guardian of the juvenile;
a relative or friend of the juvenile
L	acceptable to the juvenile;
some other person acceptable to the

L

[

juvenile who is not, in the opinion of the member of the Police Force or that other person, an accomplice of the juvenile in the alleged offence or likely to lose, destroy or fabricate evidence relating to the offence; or
[J	(iv) a legal practitioner acting for the

L

juvenile,
is present while the member or that other person interviews the juvenile or the juvenile does the act, as the case may
I	be;'

L

/
'

8
L

r

I"
L

L

r

r

I	was referred to no authority, and I know of none.	The section does not relate to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court or of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.	The restrictions contained in the section are brought into operation, not by reference to whether the Juvenile Court
l	"	may ultimately be the appropriate Court in which to charge
the suspect, but solely by reference to the question whether
l	"	the suspect is a juvenile at the time of the interview or
other activity referred to in the section.	I should say

[

[		that this construction was supported  by both parties  to these proceedings.	To make the time of the alleged commission of the offence the criterion determining whether
[		a suspect is a juvenile for  the purposes  of section  25 would, I  believe, be artificial.	In the first place, on the

r:

L	face of it,	he section refers to the interviewing of a juvenile, not to the interviewing of a person who was a

r'

juvenile when the alleged offence was committed.	Secondly, it would lead to extraordinary artificiality in a case, such
as the present, where some offences being investigated were
L		allegedly committed when the suspect was a juvenile and others after he had  become an adult.	In other cases, a

r:

[		person may be interviewed as a suspect years after the commission of a serious crime and long after the suspect has become an adult.	It would be odd, indeed, if the Parliament
L	intended such a person to be given the support referred to in the section.	I can see no reason to give section 25 any
L

L

, /

9

["

i

r:

I
other than its plain meaning.	Again, I would answer this question 'no', except that his Worship, for reasons I have
r·	referred to, had no power to state the case.

r:

r		It is a consequence of the jurisdictional question that all three questions must remain unanswered, in a formal
sense, and that anything I have said by way of answerivg
r	them  is obiter dicta.	This prompts me to ask whether

I '

stating a special case for this court's opinion is the appropriate way to determine whether a Court of Summary
[	Jurisdiction  has jurisdiction  in a particular matter.	I make no attempt to answer that question here because the
[		point, if there be one, was not taken and I would think it inappropriate to deal·with such a matter without full
r ,
I,	argument.	It seems odd (but it may not be wrong on that
[ :	count alone) that this court may give answers confirming the existence of jurisdiction but may not give answers denying
it.	It may be that procedure by prerogative writ is the
only proper way to test jurisdiction;	but that would leave
L	a magistrate unassisted in a case where he has doubts about
his jurisdiction but counsel do not.	A finding on these
L1	matters in this court will have to await an appropriate
[	case.
[
L I

l

, I

10
I.