Jackson v Hales
13 November and 1 December 2000 - Martin CJ, Thomas and Riley JJ

After a hearing following a plea of not guilty the appellant was found guilty by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of possessing a trailer reasonably suspected of having been stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained contrary to s.61 of the Summary Offences Act. It is a defence to such a charge if the defendant gives to the court a satisfactory account as to how the defendant obtained the property referred to in the charge. The trailer was worth about $2,000.00. The finding of guilt attracted a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 days imprisonment unless the appellant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he had co-operated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence as provided for by s.78A(6C)(d) of the Sentencing Act.

The appellant gave to the investigating officer an explanation of how he obtained the trailer. He gave evidence to similar effect when the matter came before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

The court found that although the appellant co-operated with the police in that he kept his appointments with police during the investigation, was polite, courteous and answered questions for as long as questions were asked, co-operation for the purpose of s.78A(6C)(d) of the Sentencing Act also entailed a substantial degree of truth in what was said on those occasions. As the court had disbelieved the account given by the appellant to the police during the investigation, the court found that the appellant had not co-operated with law enforcement agencies.

The appellant was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the magistrate erred in his interpretation of s.78A(6C)(d) of the Sentencing Act in terms of co-operation with law enforcement agencies. On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The unsuccessful appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on a number of grounds centred upon the meaning of the requirement in s.78A(6C)(d) that the court be satisfied that the offender co-operated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence.

The court unanimously dismissed the appeal holding that what amounts to co-operation will be a matter of fact and degree in each case. The expression co-operate in the context under consideration required an element of assistance to the enforcement agencies or a working together with them towards a common end. For there to be co-operation there must be either assistance to the agencies or, at least, a willingness to assist. In some cases a simple act such as attending for interview by police may suffice. In other a greater degree of co-operation may be necessary. An offender may co-operate with authorities even if that co-operation does not produce a tangible result. It is the fact of co-operation that is relevant not the product of that co-operation.

The court held that in the circumstances of this matter the appellant cannot be said to have co-operated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence where the explanation that he volunteered to those agencies as to the circumstances surrounding the obtaining of possession of the trailer, the centrepiece of the enquiry, were rejected. An offender does not co-operate with authorities by providing a false account of events in circumstances which do not suggest an innocent explanation for so doing.