Under ss 23, 26 and 32 of the Criminal Code (NT), the accused bears an evidentiary onus to point to or produce evidence raising the defences of authorisation and honest and reasonable mistaken belief before the Crown is required to negative them beyond reasonable doubt. A [name withheld]'s reference to the accused's failure to 'identify' or 'point to' permission is a reference to the evidentiary onus, not a reversal of the legal onus of proof. For breach of trust stealing offences involving repeated thefts over an extended period, a fully suspended sentence would ordinarily be manifestly inadequate.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.