› appellant found guilty and convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle
› offending conduct involved appellant sleeping in stolen vehicle
› whether an unlawful ‘use’ for the purposes of s 218(1) Criminal Code (NT)
› if prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the appellant knew the vehicle was stolen or knew he did not have permission to use it, conduct would have amounted to unlawful use
Criminal Code s 23, s 32, s 218
He Kaw Teh v The Queen [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523; Jaeger-Steigenberger v O’Neill [2011] NTSC 42; Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572; Shepard v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 97 ALR 161, followed
[name withheld] v BHP by-Products Pty Ltd [1960] HCA 59; (1960) 104 CLR 80; Dickinson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust (1987) 163 CLR 505, considered
Case Details
Citation[2012] NTSC 102
CourtNTSC
JurisdictionNorthern Territory
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
