Taikato v The Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIABRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJJO-ANNE TERUIA TAIKATO v. THE QUEEN16 October 1996 Criminal law—Possession of a prohibited article in a public place—Whether accused had a "reasonable excuse for possessing it or possessed it for a lawful purpose"—Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 545E(1), (2). Criminal law—Possession of a prohibited article in a public place—Meaning of "reasonable excuse" and "lawful purpose"—"(L)awful purpose" means purpose authorised by law—Whether "lawful purpose" includes self-defence where no apprehension of imminent attack—Whether a well-founded fear of attack sufficient to constitute a "reasonable excuse"—Relevance of time and location at which article possessed—Relevance of age, characteristics and experience of accused—Type of article possessed—Prohibited article intended to be used as a weapon—No perceived threat, immediate or otherwise, of attack at time of possession—Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 545E(2). Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 545E. HeadnoteHearingCANBERRRA, 24 April 1996#DATE 16:10:1996#ADD 16:10:1996 Counsel for the Appellant: P. Kintominas with R.K.M. Rasmussen Solicitors for the Appellant: Women's Legal Resources Centre Counsel for the Respondent: R.N. Howie QC with P.G. Berman Solicitor for the Respondent: S E O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) OrdersAppeal dismissed. Notice: This copy of the Court�s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports. DecisionsBRENNAN CJ, TOOHEY, McHUGH AND GUMMOW JJ. The issue in this appeal is whether on the facts of the case it was open to the District Court of New South Wales to find that the appellant, who...