29 The minority in Thompson took a different view. As proof of the jurisdictional fact (the locality of the deaths or cause of death) was required to establish an offence against the Territory law in question, it was an element of the offence charged: per Brennan J at 27; per Deane J at 34. Brennan and Deane JJ concluded that in certain circumstances a jurisdictional fact had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, according to the minority, if the allegation made by the Crown in the charge expressly or implicitly asserts a breach of the law of the territory, then a court of that territory has jurisdiction to try (hear and determine) the charge. That statement in isolation is ambiguous. I do not read the minority judgments as authority for the proposition that provided the charge alleges on offence within the territorial ambit of the law area (as in this case and Toubya) it is sufficient to allege, but not prove at trial, that the court has jurisdiction to enter judgment and sentence. On my reading of the minority judgments, their reference to the jurisdiction to "try" or "hear and determine" does not include jurisdiction to enter judgment or sentence unless the relevant jurisdictional facts are proven at trial (or admitted on a plea of guilty). Jurisdiction in the first sense means the jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction at trial, which at common law required a finding by the jury. That is, where the Crown has to prove a locality factor to bring the conduct within the territorial scope of the relevant law area, and that is expressed or implied in the charge itself, then the court by virtue of the simple allegation alone, has jurisdiction to try (hear and determine) the charge. However, if the locality factor is not proved at trial to the requisite standard, the Court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment of conviction or sentence an accused. I presume this bifurcated approach to jurisdiction results from the common law rule that where there is a special plea to the jurisdiction whereby an accused asserts that the Court does not have jurisdiction to try him, the plea is determined by the jury. That is not now inevitably the case in Western Australia: see s 616(7) and s 621 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA).