Annotated criminal legislation New South Wales : 2019-2020 edition [2019-2020 edition.]
 9780409351330, 0409351334

Table of contents :
Annotated Criminal Legislation 2019-2020
Table of Cases
Proceedings Before Magistrates
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crims (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2017
Trial Procedure
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes Regulation 2015
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 20063
Bail Act 2013
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2011
Summary Offences Act 1988
Summary Offences Regulation 2015
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Regulation 2014
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsiblities) Regulation 2016
Index

Citation preview

Criminal Procedure

Quick Reference Directory

Sentencing

This directory should be used to quickly locate material in this volume.

Trial Procedure

To use the directory, place right thumb on the outer edge of this page against the required area. Then fold back the remaining pages to align the directory with the corresponding page tab.

Crimes

Bail

Drugs

Summary Offences

Investigation

LEXISNEXIS ANNOTATED ACTS

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NEW SOUTH WALES 2019–2020 EDITION

Legislation Current to 11 October 2019

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 3 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:0 bwpageid:: 3:: bwservice::0::

LEXISNEXIS ANNOTATED ACTS

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NEW SOUTH WALES 2019–2020 EDITION Legislation Current to 11 October 2019 RODERICK N HOWIE QC BA LLM (Hons) A former Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

PETER A JOHNSON BA LLM A Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2020

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 4 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:0 bwpageid:: 4:: bwservice::0::

LexisNexis AUSTRALIA LexisNexis Butterworths 475–495 Victoria Avenue, Chatswood NSW 2067 On the internet at: www.lexisnexis.com.au ARGENTINA LexisNexis, BUENOS AIRES AUSTRIA LexisNexis Verlag ARD Orac GmbH & Co KG, VIENNA BRAZIL LexisNexis Latin America, SAO PAULO CANADA LexisNexis Canada, Markham, ONTARIO CHILE LexisNexis Chile, SANTIAGO CHINA LexisNexis China, BEIJING, SHANGHAI CZECH REPUBLIC Nakladatelství Orac sro, PRAGUE FRANCE LexisNexis SA, PARIS GERMANY LexisNexis Germany, FRANKFURT HONG KONG LexisNexis Hong Kong, HONG KONG HUNGARY HVG-Orac, BUDAPEST INDIA LexisNexis, NEW DELHI ITALY Dott AGiuffrè Editore SpA, MILAN JAPAN LexisNexis Japan KK, TOKYO KOREA LexisNexis, SEOUL MALAYSIA LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR NEW ZEALAND LexisNexis, WELLINGTON POLAND Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, WARSAW SINGAPORE LexisNexis, SINGAPORE SOUTH AFRICA LexisNexis Butterworths, DURBAN SWITZERLAND Staempfli Verlag AG, BERNE TAIWAN LexisNexis, TAIWAN UNITED KINGDOM LexisNexis UK, LONDON, EDINBURGH USA LexisNexis Group, New York, NEW YORK LexisNexis, Miamisburg, OHIO

ISBN: 9780409351330 EISBN: 9780409351347 ©2020

Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited trading as LexisNexis

This book is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owner. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission. Inquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Printed in Australia. Visit LexisNexis Butterworths at www.lexisnexis.com.au

Table of Contents Page

Currency note Currency note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Publisher’s note Publisher’s note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

Features of this Book Features of this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

Table of Cases Table of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

Proceedings Before Magistrates Proceedings Before Magistrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal Procedure Act 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 43 53

Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

441 447 449

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

499 507 513

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2017 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

699 701 703

Trial Procedure Trial Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

713

vii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 7 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 14:15:35 bwpageid:: 7:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Page

Crimes Act 1900* Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes Act 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

741 763 769

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 . . . . . . . . . . .

1323 1331 1333

Crimes Regulation 2015 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes Regulation 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1419 1421 1423

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1425 1429 1431

Bail Act 2013 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bail Act 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1469 1475 1477

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1547 1553 1557

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2011 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1673 1677 1679

Summary Offences Act 1988* Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Offences Act 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1699 1703 1707

Summary Offences Regulation 2015 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1771

*

Proof material has been relocated to follow the section of the Act to which it relates.

viii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 8 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 14:15:36 bwpageid:: 8:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Offences Regulation 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1773 1775

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1781 1789 1793

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Regulation 2014 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Regulation 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1887 1889 1891

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transitional Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 . . . .

1897 1911 1920 1923

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 Table of Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2103

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2175

ix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 9 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 14:15:36 bwpageid:: 9:: bwservice::0::

2097 2101

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 10 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 14:15:36 bwpageid:: 10:: bwservice::0::

Currency note Introduction This volume of LexisNexis Annotated Acts provides practitioners and students with a guide to key criminal legislation in New South Wales — all legislation is annotated with comprehensive and detailed commentary. This volume also includes proof material for the Crimes Act 1900, the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and the Summary Offences Act 1988. Each set of proof material has been relocated from the end of the volume to follow the section to which it relates.

Currency of legislation Unless otherwise specified legislation in this book is consolidated to include amendments in force as at 11 October 2019.

Amending legislation At the time of going to press, the following amending the Acts listed below had yet to commence. Crimes Act 1900 • Modern Slavery Act 2018 No 30; not yet commenced. Criminal Procedure Act 1986 • Court Information Act 2010 No 40; not yet commenced. • Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment (Property Industry Reform) Act 2018 No 5; not yet commenced. • Community Gaming Act 2018 No 60; not yet commenced. Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 • Modern Slavery Act 2018 No 30; not yet commenced • Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2018 No 83; not yet commenced. Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 • Passenger Transport Act 2014 No 46; not yet commenced. • Security Industry Amendment (Private Investigators) Act 2016 No 40; not yet commenced. • Fair Trading Amendment (Commercial Agents) Act 2016 No 52; not yet commenced. • Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment (Property Industry Reform) Act 2018 No 5; not yet commenced. • Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Building Defects Scheme) Act 2018 No 49; not yet commenced. • Community Gaming Act 2018 No 60; not yet commenced. • Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 No 63; not yet commenced.

xi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 11 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 11:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

• Statute Law Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2019 No 1; not yet commenced. • Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2019 No 10; Sch 1.15 not yet commenced. Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 • Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2019 No 10; Sch 1.16 not yet commenced.

xii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 12 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 12:: bwservice::0::

Publisher’s note Legislation The publisher, authors, contributors and endorsers of this publication each excludes liability for loss suffered by any person resulting in any way from the use of, or reliance on, this publication. The publisher gratefully acknowledges permission to reprint the Law Part Codes in relevant sections of legislation in this service from the Lawcodes database, available through the Judicial Commission of New South Wales. © LexisNexis. The legislation reproduced in this work does not purport to be an official or authorised version.

Cross references The text of this book has been extracted from the four-volume looseleaf service Criminal Practice and Procedure New South Wales by Roderick N Howie QC and Justice Peter A Johnson, and broadly follows the internal arrangement of the looseleaf service. This book therefore contains cross-references to other areas of the looseleaf service which have not been extracted. When this occurs, reference should be made to Criminal Practice and Procedure New South Wales. The commentary and proof material contain: • internal cross-references to paragraphs of the Acts and Regulations and to other paragraphs in the volume where the same or related issues are discussed in more detail and in other contexts; • cross-references to cases, other Acts and Regulations and other publications dealing with aspects of the issues under discussion.

xiii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 13 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 13:: bwservice::0::

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 14 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 14:: bwservice::0::

Features of this Book Legislation tabs This edition includes a Quick Reference Directory and grey shaded tabs on the side of the legislation, which have been added to facilitate quick and easy access to information.

Index The index locates references to given topics in all the legislation published.

Running heads Running heads at the top of each page indicate the section and paragraph number of the legislation as set out on each page as follows: Left page:

s1

Right page:

[2-s 1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 1] s1

Paragraph numbers The text in this book has been extracted from the looseleaf service Criminal Practice and Procedure New South Wales. Hence the paragraph numbers appear as they do in the looseleaf publication.

Commentary The Acts and Regulations have been annotated by R N Howie and P A Johnson and provide authoritative and comprehensive commentary to key pieces of legislation.

General commentary on a section of the Act General commentary on a given section of the Act is located at the end of the section. This provides an overview of the section and links the topic under discussion to related areas. It also describes the background and purpose of the legislation, outlining the structure and general operation of the section.

Detailed commentary on a subsection of the Act Where relevant, detailed commentary on a subsection follows the general commentary.

How to find commentary on a particular topic Information within the commentary can be researched according to the topic, case law or provision of the legislation by using the:

xv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 15 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 15:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Table of Contents This table appears at page vii.

Table of Cases This table appears at page xix.

Index The index appears at page 2175.

Tables of Provisions Located before the Acts and Regulations, the tables show the division of the legislation into parts, divisions and subdivisions, and include the title of every section or regulation. This is a convenient starting point if you need an overview of the structure of the legislation to find commentary on a particular topic.

Legislative histories To find out the full name and date of assent and commencement of an amending Act, or the number and date of gazettal and commencement of an amending Rule, turn to the relevant Table of Amendments in front of the Act or Regulations. The Table of Amendments gives a list of amendments to the legislation.

Historical notes Where a section or subsection, regulation or schedule has been amended, an historical note compiled by the editor has been inserted in square brackets, in small typeface, immediately beneath the provision. This note details the history of the provision as amended and the commencement date of the particular statute. The notes may also be read with the legislative histories of the Acts (see below). Examples [Div 3 insrt Act 55 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 2 item 13, opn 15 July 2001]

Division 3 was inserted into the principal Act by Schedule 2 item 13 of Act 55 of 2001, the insertion taking effect on 15 July 2001. [def subst Act 55 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 2 item 12, opn 15 July 2001]

The definition was completely replaced by the new definition inserted by Schedule 2 item 12 of Act 55 of 2001, the substitution taking effect on 15 July 2001.

Cross-references The commentary contains internal cross-references to sections, subdivisions, divisions and parts of the Act and to other paragraphs in the book where the same or related issues are discussed in more detail and in another context. It also contains cross-references to cases, other Acts and Regulations and other publications dealing with aspects of the issues under discussion.

xvi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 16 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:1 bwpageid:: 16:: bwservice::0::

FEATURES OF THIS BOOK

Butterworths Case Numbers and Media Neutral Citations Citations in the style BC200002707 are Butterworths Case Numbers. These numbers are unique to each case and are used for identification and cross-referencing purposes within LexisNexis products and publications. Citations in the form [2008] FCA 1765 are Media Neutral Citations. These citations comprise the year of the decision, the court which handed down the decision, and the case number. A bracketed number which follows a Media Neutral Citation (for example, “at [14]”) is a reference to a specific paragraph in the judgment.

xvii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 17 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:2 bwpageid:: 17:: bwservice::0::

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/prelim_2019 Page: 18 Date: 4/11/2019 Time: 16:29:2 bwpageid:: 18:: bwservice::0::

Table of Cases References are to paragraph numbers A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174; BC201807084 . .[8-s 45.5], [8-s 45A.5] AB (A Pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 82; BC201903135 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 306S.1] AB v — [2014] NSWCCA 31; BC2014015532 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15], [5-s 53A.5] Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v — [2013] NSWCCA 115; BC201302632 . . .[5-s 33.5] Abbott v Smith [1965] 2 QB 662n; [1964] 3 All ER 762 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-395.5] Aboud v A-G (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 671 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-220] Abrahams v Cavey [1968] 1 QB 479 . .[8-s 56.10] Abrahamson v R (1994) 63 SASR 139 .[2-s 132.1], [10-s 25.35] Achurch v — (2014) 306 ALR 566; 88 ALJR 490 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 43.1] Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472; 24 A Crim R 304 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 117.10] Adamiczka v R (1993) 33 NSWLR 68; 71 A Crim R 291 . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-130], [2-s 289.1] Adams v Chas S Watson Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 545; [1938] ALR 365 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 179.1] — v Kennedy (2000) 49 NSWLR 78 .[21-s 99.15] — v R [2018] NSWCCA 303; BC201812474 .[2-s 293.1] — v — [2011] NSWCCA 47; BC201101502 . .[8-s 33.20] — v — (2008) 234 CLR 143; 244 ALR 270 .[10-s 25.25] Adler v District Court (NSW) (1990) 19 NSWLR 317; 48 A Crim R 420 . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v DPP (2004) 51 ACSR 1; 22 ACLC 1460 .[2-s 19.5] AG v R [2016] NSWCCA 102; BC201604186 .[5-s 23.1] AH v — [2015] NSWCCA 51; BC201502298 .[5-s 21A.20] Ahmad v — [2006] NSWCCA 177; BC200604022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Ah-See v Heilpern (2000) 115 A Crim R 1 . . .[2-s 281.1] Ainsworth v Hanrahan (1991) 25 NSWLR 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] AJB v R (2007) 169 A Crim R 32 .[5-s 44.15], [8-s 66A.40] Albert v Lavin [1981] 2 WLR 1070 .[8-s 546C.15] Alderson v Booth [1969] 2 QB 216; (1969) 53 Cr App R 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.5] Alesbhi v R; Esbhi v R [2018] NSWCCA 30;

BC201801504 . .[2-s 168.1], [5-s 21A.5], [5-s 58.1] Alexander v R (1981) 145 CLR 395; 34 ALR 289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; 59 ALR 101 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.25] Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35; BC200801606 . .[5-s 21A.5] Alister v — (1984) 154 CLR 404; 51 ALR 480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.30] Alla v Gleeson (NSWSC, Roden J, 25 October 1985, unreported) .[21-s 206.1], [21-s 206.5], [21-s 206.10] Allan v R [2017] NSWCCA 6; BC201700487 .[2-s 293.1] — v R (No 2) [2011] NSWCCA 27; BC201100884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 59.5] Allen v R [2010] NSWCCA 47; BC201001303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.15] Allerton v DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 550; 53 A Crim R 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-230] Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281; BC201110694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 29.15] Allitt v Sullivan [1988] VR 621 . . . .[21-s 48.40] Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185; BC200906177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Alvares and Farache v — [2011] NSWCCA 33; BC201101505 . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (2001) 122 A Crim R 166 . . . . .[2-s 202.1] Anderson v Judges of the District Court (NSW) (1992) 27 NSWLR 701; 62 A Crim R 277 . .[8-s 527C.10], [8-s 527C.25], [21-s 219.1] — v Kynaston [1924] VLR 214 . . . .[11-125.20] — v R (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, 12 October 1989, BC8901598) . . . . .[2-s 222.10], [2-s 227.5] Andrews v Ardler (2012) 266 FLR 177 . . . . .[2-s 134.20] — v DPP [1937] AC 576; [1937] 2 All ER 552; (1937) 101 JP 386; 26 Cr App Rep 34; 2 All ER 552 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50], [8-s 54.5] Anglim and Cooke v Thomas [1974] VR 363 .[10-s 12.1] Anic v R (1993) 68 A Crim R 313 . .[8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.15] Anjoul v — [2014] NSWCCA 234; BC201409108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.5] Annakin v — (1988) 17 NSWLR 202; 37 A Crim R 131 .[2-s 21.10], [2-s 21.15], [2-s 161.5], [8-s 18.5]

xix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 1 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:38 bwpageid:: 19:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1], [5-s 37.1] Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 2 of 2002) (2002) 137 A Crim R 196 . . . . . .[8-s 60.20] Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1987) (1987) 48 SASR 1; 30 A Crim R 343 . . . . .[7-525] Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1996] 2 All ER 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 20.1] Attorney-General’s Reference No 6 of 1980 [1981] QB 715 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Aubrey v R (2017) 343 ALR 538; 91 ALJR 601 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.1], [8-s 18.1], [8-s 35.10] Auld v Purdy (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 218 . . . .[8-s 93X.10] Australia Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 89; BC200300344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20.5] Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Cloran (1984) 4 FCR 151; 57 ALR 742 . . . . .[21-s 48.25] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Farley (2001) 51 NSWLR 494 . . .[2-s 117.1], [2-s 214.1] Bailey v Dept of Land and Water Conservation (2009) 74 NSWLR 333 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 142.5] Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; 49 ALR 385 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] — v Evans (1987) 77 ALR 565 . . .[2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] — v R (2004) 223 CLR 513; 210 ALR 1 . .[5-Sch 1.1] Bales v Parmeter (1935) 35 SR (NSW) 182; 52 WN (NSW) 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.20] Ball v McIntyre (1966) 9 FLR 237 . . .[11-125.10], [11-125.20] Banditt v R (2005) 224 CLR 262; 223 ALR 633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.5] Banks v — [2018] NSWCCA 41; BC201801898 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Bannister v Clarke [1920] 3 KB 598 . .[2-s 202.10] Bantick v Blunden (1981) 36 ALR 541; 58 FLR 414 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.5] Bao v R [2016] NSWCCA 16; BC201600790 . .[5-s 53A.5] Baradi v — [2018] NSWCCA 143; BC201806073 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.1] Barca v — (1975) 133 CLR 82; 7 ALR 78; 50 ALJR 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] Barker v Harvey (1942) 60 WN (NSW) 32 . . .[8-s 93X.10] — v R (1983) 153 CLR 338; 47 ALR 1 . . . . .[8-s 112.15], [8-s 117.35] Bar-Mordecai v Hillston [2003] NSWSC 1269; BC200308531 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 338.1] Barns v Edwards (1993) 31 NSWLR 714; 68 A Crim R 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-010] Barr (A Pseudonym) v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) [2018] NSWCA 47;

Anson v DPP (2002) 129 A Crim R 328 . .[1-055], [1-280], [2-s 6.1] Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284; BC201110365 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.45], [10-s 25.25] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 292; BC200708836 .[5-s 21A.10] Apostilides v — (1984) 154 CLR 563; 53 ALR 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] Application by Attorney General (No 3 of 2002), Re (2004) 61 NSWLR 305; 147 A Crim R 546 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 37.1], [8-s 52A.45] Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290; BC200607306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 19A.5] Archer v — [2017] NSWCCA 151; BC201704980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Argytis v Stones 1959 AR (NSW) 145 . .[2-s 16.35] Arrowsmith v R (1994) 55 FCR 130 . .[2-s 161.20] Aslan v — (2015) 21 DCLR (NSW) 101 .[8-s 53.5] Aslett v — [2006] NSWCCA 49; BC200601952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Astor v Hayes (1988) 38 A Crim R 219 . . . . .[8-s 117.35] Atkinson v Coady (NSWSC, Campbell J, 20 October 1989, BC8901561) . . . . . . . . .[21-s 61.5] — v R [2014] NSWCCA 262; BC201410622 . .[5-s 22.5] — v Samuels (1977) 17 SASR 129 . . . .[11-395.5] Attorney General (NSW) v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119; BC200703909 . . .[29-950.5], [29-956.5], [29-965.5] Attorney -General (SA) v Brown [1960] AC 432; [1960] ALR 395 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83; 163 ALR 576 . . . .[8-s 43.5], [8-s 43A.5] Attorney-General (NSW) v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 983; BC200708445 . . .[29-956.5], [29-965.5] — v Jackson (1906) 3 CLR 730; 12 ALR 375 .[2-s 285.1] — v Kintominas (1987) 28 A Crim R 371 . .[7-220] — v Mayas Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 342 . .[2-s 57.1] — v Milat (1995) 37 NSWLR 370 . . . .[2-s 36.1] — v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667; 75 A Crim R 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-250], [2-s 222.30] Attorney-General (NT) v Kearney & Northern Land Council (1985) 158 CLR 500; 61 ALR 55 .[2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 .[5-s 55.1] — v West Gloustershire Water Co [1909] 1 Ch 636 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 41A.5] Attorney-General’s Application (No 1); R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327 . . . . .[5-s 37.1], [8-s 112.20], [8-s 113.15] Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; 137 A Crim R 180

References are to paragraph numbers

xx

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 2 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:39 bwpageid:: 20:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES BC201802823 . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5], [9-s 74.5] Barrett v R [2011] NSWCCA 213; BC201107694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Barrington v Austin [1939] SASR 130 . . . . .[21-s 206.10] Barrom v Valdmanis (NSWSC, Meares J, 2 May 1978, No 7869/77, unreported[1978] ACLD 374 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 10.35], [10-s 43.1] Barron v A-G (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 215 .[2-s 8.10] Bartho v R (1978) 52 ALJR 520; 19 ALR 418 .[2-s 161.10] Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451 .[8-s 58.5] — v Berman [1980] 1 NSWLR 63 . . .[2-s 117.10] — v R (1980) 147 CLR 75; 32 ALR 449 . . . .[2-s 8.10], [2-s 19.5], [7-220] Basto v — (1954) 91 CLR 628; 28 ALJR 519 .[2-s 161.30], [8-s 27.1], [8-s 27.45], [8-s 39.35], [8-s 41.35] Beavan v — (1954) 92 CLR 660; [1954] ALR 775 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 18.25] Beavis v — [2018] NSWCCA 248; BC201810418 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Beckwith v — (1976) 135 CLR 569; 12 ALR 333; 51 ALJR 247 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1] Behman v — [2014] NSWCCA 239; BC201409192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Bell v Atwell (1988) 32 A Crim R 181 . . . . .[8-s 547D.10] — v R; Jelisavac v R [2009] NSWCCA 206; BC200907562 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Bellchambers v R [2011] NSWCCA 131; BC201104171 . . . . .[5-s 44.15], [8-s 61I.65] — v — [2008] NSWCCA 235; BC200809092 .[8-s 428B.1] Bellino v Clair [1993] 2 Qd R 236; (1992) 63 A Crim R 346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] Benasic v R (1987) 77 ALR 340 . . . . .[8-s 99.10] Bennett v Daniels (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 134 . .[2-s 16.15] — v Marr (1978) 4 Petty SR 1824 . . . .[2-s 190.1] Berrigan v R [1995] 20 Leg Rep C2c . .[2-s 293.1] Berryman v — [2017] NSWCCA 297; BC201710692 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 53A.5] Berwin v Donohue (1915) 21 CLR 1 . . .[2-s 14.1] Betts v R [2015] NSWCCA 39; BC201501792 .[5-s 21A.5] Biddle v — [2017] NSWCCA 128; BC201704509 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22A.1] Bikhit v — [2007] NSWCCA 202; BC200705470 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10A.1] Biles v — [2014] NSWCCA 170; BC201406791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Billing v Pill [1954] 1 QB 70 . . . . . .[8-s 117.15] Bird v Adams [1972] Crim LR 174 . . .[10-s 12.1] Black v Breen [2000] NSWSC 987; BC200006417

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.15] — v Corkery (1988) 33 A Crim R 134 .[8-s 545C.5] — v R (1993) 179 CLR 44; 118 ALR 209 . . .[2-s 161.12], [7-805] Blackwell v — (2011) 208 A Crim R 392 . . . .[8-s 4A.5], [8-s 35.5] — v — [2012] NSWCCA 227; BC201208964 .[5-s 22.5] Blanch v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 58 ATR 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] Blazevski v Judges of the District Court (1992) 29 ALD 197 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.1] Blewitt v R (1988) 80 ALR 353; 62 ALJR 503 .[2-s 150.5] Blight v Barber (2007) 164 IR 136 . . . .[2-s 175.1] Blondin (1971) 2 CCC(2d) 118 . . . . .[10-s 10.15] BM v R [2017] NSWCCA 133; BC201704587 .[2-s 161.35] Boag v — (1994) 73 A Crim R 35 . . . .[2-s 207.1] Bollmeyer v Daly [1933] SASR 295 .[8-s 154A.10] Bolton v Dance [1968] VR 631 . . . . . .[11-155.1] Bond v R (1990) 48 A Crim R 1 . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Booth Pty Ltd v Barlett 1956 AR (NSW) 720 . .[2-s 16.15] Boral Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd v Magill (1993) 32 NSWLR 501 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 11.1] Borodin v R [2006] NSWCCA 83; BC200601917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.1] Botany Bay Instrumentation and Control Pty Ltd v Stewart [1984] 3 NSWLR 98 . . . .[2-s 227.1] Boughey v R (1986) 161 CLR 10; 65 ALR 609; 20 A Crim R 156 .[8-s 18.5], [8-s 44.5], [8-s 58.5], [8-s 93G.10], [8-s 193H.5] Boujaoude v — [2008] NSWCCA 35; BC200801070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.23] Bourke v — (2010) 199 A Crim R 38 .[5-s 21A.15], [8-s 33.3], [8-s 33.20] Boyd v — [2016] NSWSC 1691 . . .[5-s 44.40], [5Sch 1.1] — v R (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 863; BC201705235 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.40], [5-Sch 1.1] Bradshaw v R (WACCA, Malcolm CJ, Pidgeon and Owen JJ, 142/1996, 13 May 1997, BC9701944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] Brady v Schatzel [1911] St R Qd 206 . . .[8-s 58.5] Brebner v Seager [1926] VLR 166 . . .[8-s 527C.1] Brennan v R [2018] NSWCCA 22; BC201800945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Brindley v — (1993) 66 A Crim R 204 .[5-s 44.15] British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; 273 ALR 429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Bromley v R (1986) 161 CLR 315; 67 ALR 12 .[2-s 161.40] Broome v Chenoweth (1947) 73 CLR 583; 20 ALJ 401; [1947] VLR 1; 8 ATD 218 . . . .[7-105], [7-160]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 3 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:41 bwpageid:: 21:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Brotherton v R (1992) 29 NSWLR 95; 65 A Crim R 301 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35], [2-s 161.55] Brown v GJ Coles & Co Ltd (1985) 8 FCR 304; 59 ALR 455; 17 A Crim R 79 . . . .[21-s 99.30] — v R [2018] NSWCCA 257; BC201811027 . .[5-s 21A.10] — v — (1986) 160 CLR 171; 64 ALR 161 .[7-200] — v Robinson (1959) 60 SR (NSW) 297; 76 WN (NSW) 758 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 . . . . . .[2-s 150.5] — v Dunne: Khamis v R [2010] NSWCCA 179; BC20105950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-555] Brownlee v R (2001) 207 CLR 278; 108 ALR 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 131.1] BRS v — (1997) 191 CLR 275; 148 ALR 101 .[2-s 161.45] Bruce v — (1987) 74 ALR 219 . . . . .[8-s 188.25] Brutus v Cozens [1972] 2 All ER 1297; [1973] AC 854 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.10] Bryan v Mott (1975) 62 Cr App Rep 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-230.10] Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26; BC201101121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] Buckman v — [2013] NSWCCA 258 . .[10-s 25.20] Bugmy v — (1990) 169 CLR 525; 92 ALR 552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] Bui v — [2008] NSWCCA 297; BC200811261 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 23A.5] Bungie v — [2015] NSWCCA 9; BC201500543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 43.1] Burns v — (2012) 290 ALR 713 . .[8-s 18.50], [8-s 18.55] Burrell v — (2009) 196 A Crim R 199 .[2-s 161.15] BUSB v Director-General of Security [2011] NSWCA 49; BC201101463 . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-490] Bush v R (1993) 43 FCR 549; 115 ALR 654 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-495] Butters v — [2010] NSWCCA 1; BC201000367 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Cahyadi v — (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 . .[5-s 55.1] Cain v Banks [1959] Qd R 234 . . . . . .[8-s 117.5] — v Douglas (1946) 72 CLR 409; [1946] ALR 490 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 351B.5] Callaghan v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 145 .[5-s 47.1] Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd v Maritime Services Board (NSW) (1995) 36 NSWLR 552; 78 A Crim R 368 . . . . .[2-s 116.15], [2-s 213.15] Calvert v Mayes [1954] 1 QB 342 . . . .[11-380.5], [11-380.10] Camp, Appeal of [1975] 1 NSWLR 452 .[11-125.15] Campbell v R (1980) 2 A Crim R 157 . .[8-s 18.15] Canceri v Taylor (1994) 123 ALR 667; 55 IR 316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 117.1] Caratti v R [1984] WAR 313; (1984) 10 A Crim R 328 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 157.5], [8-s 161.1] Carew v Carone (1991) 5 WAR 1 . . . . . .[7-485]

Carney and Cambey v R [2011] NSWCCA 223; BC201108760 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.25] Carr v — (1988) 165 CLR 314; 81 ALR 236 . .[2-s 161.40] Carroll v A-G (NSW) (1993) 70 A Crim R 162 .[2-s 222.30] — v Mijovich (1991) 25 NSWLR 441; 58 A Crim R 243 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 65.1], [21-s 76.1] Carter v Managing Partner, Northmore Hale Davy and Leake (1995) 183 CLR 121; 129 ALR 593 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20.5] Carusi v R (1990) 64 ALJR 657 . .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 26.1] Carver v Law Society of New South Wales (1998) 43 NSWLR 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Cashel v R [2018] NSWCCA 292; BC201812126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.85] Cassaniti v Croucher (2000) 48 NSWLR 623; 175 ALR 113 . . .[21-s 48.15], [21-s 48.20], [21-s 60.1] Castle v Olen (1985) 3 NSWLR 26 . . .[10-s 3.35], [10-s 27.5] — v R [2016] NSWCCA 148; BC201606383 . .[8-s 86.1] Cattell v Rolfe (1993-94) 1 NSWCR 49 . . . .[21-s 134.1] CC v R [2010] NSWCCA 337; BC201010020 .[2-s 161.1] CES v Superclinics (Aust) Pty Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 84.5] CH v R [2019] NSWCCA 68; BC201902352 . .[5-s 33.1] Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; 51 ALR 225; 58 ALJR 133 . . .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.15] Chaplin v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 85 . .[8-s 86.15] Chapman v — [2013] NSWCCA 91; BC201302135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.1] Charara v — (2006) 164 A Crim R 39 . . . .[1-510] Cheatle v — (1993) 177 CLR 541; 116 ALR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-810] Cheney v — (1991) 28 FCR 103; 99 ALR 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-575] Cheng v — [2000] HCA 53; (2000) 203 CLR 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.1] Cheung v — (2001) 209 CLR 1 . . . . .[5-s 54B.5] Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Au (2005) 153 A Crim R 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 208.5] Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573; [1947] 1 All ER 567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.15] Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48; BC201701935 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22A.1] Church v — [2012] NSWCCA 149; BC201205031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 319.15] Cicciarello v — [2009] NSWCCA 272; BC200910122 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 4 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:42 bwpageid:: 22:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES CJ v — [2012] NSWCCA 258; BC201209878 .[2-s 133.1] CL v DPP (NSW) [2011] NSWSC 943; BC201106872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] Clark v R [2008] NSWCCA 122; BC200803971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 294A.5] — v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486; [1960] ALR 524 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 12.1] Clarkson v DPP (Vic) [1990] VR 745 . . . .[7-485] Clayton v John L Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 11.1] Cleary v Hammond [1976] 1 NSWLR 111 . . .[8-s 527C.10] Cleland v Harris [1950] AR (NSW) 271 .[2-s 16.35] — v R (1982) 151 CLR 1; 43 ALR 619 . . . . .[2-s 161.30] Clements Dunne & Bell Pty Ltd v Cmr, Aus Federal Police (No 1) [2000] FCA 1387; BC200005867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.40] — v Cmr, Aus Federal Police (No 2) (2001) 188 ALR 515 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.40] Clixby v Weston (1988) 15 NSWLR 35; 83 ALR 485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 154A.15] Close v R (1992) 31 NSWLR 743; 65 A Crim R 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Clyne v A-G (Cth) (1984) 12 A Crim R 378 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-005] Colbourn, In the Appeal of (NSWSC, Gee DCJ, 21 October 1977, unreported) . . . . . .[10-s 3.1] Coleman v DPP (2000) 49 NSWLR 371 .[11-410.5] Collier v DPP (NSW) [2011] NSWCA 202; BC201105441 . . . . .[2-s 192.1], [2-s 193.1] — v R [2012] NSWCCA 213; BC201208028 . .[5-s 44.15] Collins v Murray; Ex parte Murray [1989] 1 Qd R 614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Wilcock (1984) 1 WLR 1172 . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Colosimo v DPP (2005) 64 NSWLR 645; 155 A Crim R 573 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93C.10], [8-s 418.1] — v — [2006] NSWCA 293; BC200609029 . .[8-s 93C.10] Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Young (1962) 106 CLR 535 . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.1] Commissioner for Railways v Small (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 564; 55 WN (NSW) 215 .[2-s 222.10], [2-s 227.1], [2-s 227.5] Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd (1997) 188 CLR 501; 141 ALR 545 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] Commissioner of Police (NSW) v Folkes [2015] NSWSC 1887; BC201512199 . . . .[11-535.5], [11-540.15] Commissioner of Police v Allen (1984) 14 A Crim R 244 . . . . . . . . . .[11-530.10], [11-540.15] — v Atkinson (1991) 23 NSWLR 495; 54 A Crim R 378 . . . .[21-s 48.35], [21-s 61.1], [21-s 61.5] — v Bennett (1991) 9 Petty SR 4311 . .[21-s 219.1]

— v Fandakis [2001] NSWSC 586; BC200103907 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 118.1], [2-s 216.1] — v Gabriel (2004) 141 A Crim R 566 .[11-540.15] — v Pecover [2014] NSWSC 1427; BC201409098 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 218.5] — v Reid (1989) 16 NSWLR 453 . . . .[8-s 338.1] — v Rintoul [2003] NSWSC 662; BC200303953 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-530.10], [11-540.15] — v Wilson [1984] AC 242 . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1993) 176 CLR 604; 112 ALR 409 . . . . . .[2-s 228.5] Comptroller of Customs v Western Lectric Co Ltd [1966] AC 367 . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 12.1] Connelly v DPP (UK) [1964] AC 1254; [1964] 2 All ER 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] Conners v Craigie (1993-94) 1 NSWCR 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] — v — (1994) 76 A Crim R 502 . . . .[11-125.20], [11-125.25] Connolly v Willis [1984] 1 NSWLR 373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] Considine v Kirkpatrick [1971] SASR 73 .[8-s 4.5], [11-230.10] Cooke v Purcell (1988) 14 NSWLR 51; 91 FLR 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Cooper v Shield [1971] 2 QB 334; 2 All ER 917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.10] Corbett v NSW [2006] NSWCA 138; BC200604217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 60.1] Corcoran v Gurney (1853) 1 Ellis and Blackburn 456 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 32.1] Cordwell v Lincoln [1914] QSR 186 . .[8-s 502.10] Corkery v Black (NSWCA, 2 August 1989, BC8901886) . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 545C.5] Cornelius and Briggs v R (1988) 34 A Crim R 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] Cornwall v Attorney-General (NSW) [2007] NSWCA 374; BC200711457 . . . . . . . . . .[29-950.5] Couloumbis v R [2012] NSWCCA 264; BC201209687 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Coulter v — (1987) 61 ALJR 537 . . . .[8-s 59.10] Coventry v — (1938) 59 CLR 633 . . .[8-s 52A.45] Cowling v — [2015] NSWCCA 213; BC201507549 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] Cox v Salt (1994) 12 WAR 12 . . . . . .[2-s 202.1] C-P v R [2009] NSWCCA 291; BC200911181 .[5-s 33.1] Crabbe v — (1985) 156 CLR 464; 58 ALR 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.5] Crafter v Kelly [1941] SASR 237 . .[8-s 189A.10], [11-275.1] Craig v SA (1995) 184 CLR 163; 131 ALR 595 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 36.1] Cramp v R (1999) 30 MVR 9; 110 A Crim R 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.7], [8-s 18.62] Crampton v — (2000) 206 CLR 161; 176 ALR 369

References are to paragraph numbers

xxiii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 5 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:43 bwpageid:: 23:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] Crichton v Victorian Dairies Ltd (1965) VR 49 .[2-s 14.1] Cross v R (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 234; BC201209055 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 50.1] Crothers v Sheil (1933) 49 CLR 399; 33 SR (NSW) 525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Croton v R (1967) 117 CLR 326; [1968] ALR 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.20], [8-s 162.1] Crowe v Graham (1968) 121 CLR 375; [1968] ALR 524 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-135.5] CT v R [2017] NSWCCA 15; BC201700968 . .[8-s 66A.40] CTM v — (2008) 247 ALR 1; 82 ALJR 978 . .[8-s 66C.10] — v — (2007) 171 A Crim R 371 . . .[8-s 66D.10] Cullen v Meckelenburg [1977] WAR 1 . .[11-135.5] — v R [2014] NSWCCA 162; BC201406584 . .[5-s 53A.5] Cumberland v DPP (NSWSC, Hulme J, 7 June 1996, BC9606848) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 212.5] Czako v R [2015] NSWCCA 202; BC201507195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.45] D v — [2016] NSWCCA 60 . . . . . . . . .[7-010] Da Silva v — [2016] NSWCCA 40; BC201605196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 30.1] DAC v — [2006] NSWCCA 265; BC200606707 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 54B.1] Daher v — [2018] NSWCCA 287; BC201812123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25A.5] Dale v DPP [2009] VSCA 212; BC200908579 .[9-s 19.10] Dallison v Caffery [1965] 1 QB 348; [1964] 2 All ER 610 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246; BC201314491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 24.40] Danial v — [2008] NSWCCA 15; BC200800416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v ACCC (2002) 213 CLR 543; 192 ALR 561 . . . .[2-s 222.20.5] Darby v DPP (2004) 61 NSWLR 558; 150 A Crim R 314 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 21.1] Darcey v Pre-Term Foundation Clinic [1983] 2 NSWLR 497 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 227.10] Darch v Weight [1984] 1 WLR 659 . .[8-s 310G.5] Davidson v R (2009) 75 NSWLR 150; 195 A Crim R 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] Davies and Cody v — (1937) 57 CLR 170; 43 ALR 321; [1937] VLR 205 . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] Davis v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275 . . . . . . .[7-105] — v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 .[8-s 58.45], [8-s 58.50] — v R (1998) 73 ALJR 139; 20 Leg Rep C 19c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v — [2006] NSWCCA 392; BC200610292 .[8-s 86.2]

— v — (1991) 103 ALR 417; 66 ALJR 22 . .[10-s 19.1] — v — (1991) 66 ALJR 22 . . . . . . .[10-s 27.1] — v — [2018] NSWCCA 67; BC201802688 . .[5-s 21A.10] Dawson v — (1961) 106 CLR 1; [1962] ALR 365 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] Day v — (1984) 153 CLR 475; 51 ALR 353 . .[8-s 310D.10] — v Rugala [1978] 33 FLR 208 . . . . . .[2-s 11.1] De Campos v R [2006] NSWCCA 51; BC200601099 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] De Gruchy v — (2002) 211 CLR 85; 190 ALR 441 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.25] De Jesus v — (1986) 68 ALR 1; 61 ALJR 1 . .[2-s 21.15] De Londo’s Case (1765) 2 Eas PC 1098 .[8-s 28.1] De Romanis v Sibraa [1977] 2 NSWLR 264 . .[2-s 11.1] De Varda v Constable Stengord [2011] NSWSC 868; BC201110512 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 214.1] Deakin v R (1984) 54 ALR 765; 58 ALJR 367; 11 A Crim R 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] Dean v — [2015] NSWCCA 307; BC201511889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 61.1] Dearing v Passi (1994) 12 NSWCR 117; (1995) 2 Crim LN 13 . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.15] Decision restricted [2018] NSWCCA 288 . . . .[2-s 161.62] — [2019] NSWCCA 43 . . . . . . . .[8-s 192E.20] Delk v R (1999) 46 NSWLR 340; 106 A Crim R 240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.2] Demetriou v DPP (2000) 32 MVR 485 .[2-s 16.15] Dendic & Mazzeo v R (1987) 34 A Crim R 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.45] Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB (Marion’s case) (1992) 175 CLR 218; 106 ALR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Derriman v Slattery [1982] 1 NSWLR 214; (1982) 41 ALR 482; 61 FLR 230 . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] Dever v Creevey; Ex parte Creevey [1993] 1 Qd R 232; (1991) ASC 56–100 . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] DG v R [2017] NSWCCA 139; BC201704749 .[5-s 33.5] Dhanhoa v — (2003) 217 CLR 1; 199 ALR 547 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55], [2-s 161.62] Diaz v — [2018] NSWCCA 33; BC201801665 .[8-s 86.15] Dickson v Cmr of Police (1999) 48 NSWLR 156; 108 A Crim R 494 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 138.1] Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385 . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 36.1], [2-s 40.1], [7-400] Dimian v — (1995) 83 A Crim R 358 . .[2-s 293.1] Dimitrou v Samuels (1975) 10 SASR 331 . . .[10-s 43.1] Director General NSW Dept of Agriculture v Temmingh [2003] NSWSC 598; BC200303816

References are to paragraph numbers

xxiv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 6 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:44 bwpageid:: 24:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES . . . . .[2-s 116.15], [2-s 213.15], [2-s 215.1] — v — [2003] NSWSC 247; BC200301726 . .[8-s 10A.10] Director of Prosecutions (NSW) v Knight (2006) 162 A Crim R 555 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Cassaniti [2006] NSWSC 1103; BC200608435 . . .[9-s 22.5] — v Heng [2015] NSWCCA 333; BC201513370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5] — v Ngo [2012] NSWSC 1521; BC201209750 .[2-s 214.1] Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Al-Zuhairi [2018] NSWCCA 151; BC201807259 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 289F.5] — v Banks [2019] NSWSC 363; BC201902564 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 289F.5] — v Best [2016] NSWSC 261; BC201601623 .[8-s 60.5] — v Chaouk [2010] NSWSC 1418; BC201009315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 187.5] — v Elias [2013] NSWSC 28; BC201300526 . .[1485], [2-s 202.15] — v Farrugia [2017] NSWCCA 197; BC201712343 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 132.1], [2-s 132A.1] — v Horwood (2009) 78 NSWLR 32; 208 A Crim R 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 11.5] — v Hughes [2017] NSWSC 492; BC201704458 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91H.5] — v Nikolovski [2017] NSWSC 1038; BC201706020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-5250.5] — v O’Conner (2006) 181 A Crim R 294 .[2-s 84.1] — v Wililo [2012] NSWSC 713; BC201204764 .[1005], [2-s 134.20], [2-s 194.5], [8-s 58.2] Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Gramelis [2010] NSWSC 787; BC201005079 . .[1-485] — v Lazzam [2016] NSWSC 145; BC201601079 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 188.1] — v Lee [2006] NSWSC 270; BC200602273 . .[2-s 202.1] — v Losurdo (1998) 44 NSWLR 618; 103 A Crim R 189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-510], [2-s 85.1] — v Tamcelik [2012] NSWSC 1008; BC201206880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 82.1] — v Williams [2018] NSWSC 1832; BC201811523 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.20] — v Wunderwald [2004] NSWSC 182; BC200401191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 194.5] Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Boykin (NSWSC, Wood J, 21 June 1994, BC9405141) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 212.1] — v Campbell [2015] NSWCCA 173; BC201505760 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 67.1], [9-s 16A.5] — v Dagdanasar [2016] NSWSC 1089; BC201606571 . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 18.10] — v Elskaf [2012] NSWSC 21; BC201200277 .[2-s 194.5], [2-s 202.1]

— v Fungavaka [2010] NSWSC 917; BC201006159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 183.5] — v Harrison [2008] NSWSC 349; BC200802605 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Illawarra Cashmart Pty Ltd (2006) 67 NSWLR 402 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.15] — v Lucas [2014] NSWSC 1441; BC201408778 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 195.5] — v Mawad [2015] NSWCCA 227 . . .[9-s 16A.5], [9-s 31.5] — v Nassif (2002) 135 A Crim R 391 . .[21-s 10.1] — v Roberts [2016] NSWSC 1224; BC201608608 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 69.1] — v Tikomaimaleya [2015] NSWCA 83; BC201502323 .[9-s 16A.5], [9-s 16A.10], [9-s 19.5], [9-s 66.5] — v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157 . . .[2-s 190.1], [2-s 193.1] — v Zaiter [2016] NSWCCA 247 . .[9-s 1.30], [9-s 16A.5], [9-s 66.15] Director of Public Prosecutions Reference (No 1 of 1988) [1989] VR 857; (1989) 40 A Crim R 461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 197.5] Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 1993; R v K (1993) 118 ALR 596; 46 FCR 336 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.55], [8-s 546C.15] Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) Reference No 2 of 1995 (1995) 65 SASR 508; 82 A Crim R 263 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.15] Director of Public Prosecutions v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 526 . . . . . . .[2-s 11.1], [2-s 16.35] — v Armstrong [2010] NSWSC 885; BC201006200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.50] — v Aydogan (2006) 67 NSWLR 727 .[8-s 317.15] — v B (1998) 155 ALR 539 . . . . . . . . .[7-105] — v Boykin (NSWSC, Wood J, 21 June 1994, BC9405141) . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 227.10] — v Brooks [1974] 2 WLR 899; [1974] AC 862 . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.5], [10-s 10.40] — v Cakici [2006] NSWSC 454; BC200603471 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.20] — v Carr (2002) 127 A Crim R 151 . .[11-130.10], [21-s 99.5] — v Cassell (1995) 80 A Crim R 160 . .[2-s 208.5] — v Curby [2000] NSWSC 745; BC200004322 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 99.10] — v Daley [1980] AC 237 . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Darby [2002] NSWSC 1157; BC200207203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 21.1] — v Deeks (1994) 34 NSWLR 523; 74 A Crim R 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020], [2-s 227.10] — v Evans [2017] NSWSC 33; BC201700415 .[8-s 418.1] — v FD [2017] NSWSC 679; BC201704149 . .[8-s 61AA.1], [8-s 61AA.5] — v Goben [1999] NSWSC 696; BC9903990 .[2-s 213.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 7 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:46 bwpageid:: 25:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Gribble (2005) 151 A Crim R 256 .[8-s 58.55] — v Heagney [1999] NSWSC 303; BC9901442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 156.1] — v Humphrys [1977] AC 1; [1976] 2 All ER 497 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] — v JWH (NSWSC, Hulme J, 17 October 1997, BC9705937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v K (1999) 49 NSWLR 226 . . . . . .[8-s 99.10] — v Merriman [1973] AC 584 . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Newbury [1977] AC 500 . . . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Nock [1978] AC 979; [1978] 3 WLR 57 .[10-s 6.10], [10-s 40.1] — v Puskar (1992) 10 Petty SR 4521 . .[8-s 58.55] — v Ray [1974] AC 370; [1973] 3 All ER 131 .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v Ridley (2015) 73 MVR 125 . . . . .[2-s 38.1] — v Rogers [1953] 2 All ER 644 . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129; 102 A Crim R 180 . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020], [2-s 192.5] — v Sinclair (NSWSC, Sperling J, 014409/1996, 1 April 1997, BC9701516) . . . . . .[8-s 311.1] — v Sinton (2001) 51 NSWLR 659; 33 MVR 549 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 167.1] — v Sounthorn [1999] NSWSC 786; BC9904395 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 183.1] — v TY (No 2) (2006) 14 VR 430; 167 A Crim R 596 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Vella [1999] NSWSC 49; BC9900681 . . .[2-s 156.1] — v — (2005) 156 A Crim R 113 . . . . .[8-s 60.5] — v Webb (2001) 52 NSWLR 341; 164 FLR 394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 183.1] — v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647 . . .[2-s 134.20], [2-s 183.5], [2-s 187.1], [2-s 187.5], [2-s 188.1] Director-General of Fair Trading v O’Shane (NSWSC, Graham AJ, 22 August 1997, BC9703791) . . . . .[2-s 202.10], [2-s 208.5] Dixon v McCarthy [1975] 1 NSWLR 617 . . . .[5-s 10.10] — v Stephens (NSWSC, Street J, 2 September 1971, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5] DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319; BC201711037 . .[2-s 167.1] DJB v — [2007] NSWCCA 209; BC200711453 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 20.1] DJS v — [2010] NSWCCA; BC201007150 . . .[2-s 161.45] Dodd v — (1991) 56 A Crim R 451 .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 156.1], [2-s 193.5], [7-160], [10-s 10.50], [10-s 25.15] Doe v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1996; BC201813040 . . .[8-s 578A.5] — v R [2013] NSWCCA 248; BC201314493 . .[8-s 61I.65] Doja v — [2009] NSWCCA 303; BC200911598 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.1]

Doklu v — [2010] NSWCCA 309; BC201009853 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.12] Domican v — (1989) 43 A Crim R 24 .[2-s 21.15], [2-cl 21.5] — v — (1992) 173 CLR 555; 106 ALR 203; 66 ALJR 285 . .[2-s 161.25], [2-s 161.30], [2-s 161.55], [7-625] Dominguez v — (1985) 63 ALR 181 .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.30] Donaczy v — [2010] NSWCCA 143; BC201004642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [8-s 24.30] Donald v — (1983) 34 SASR 10; 11 A Crim R 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Doney v — (1990) 171 CLR 207; 96 ALR 539 .[2-s 154.1], [7-525] Donges v Ratcliffe [1975] 1 NSWLR 501 . .[1-485], [2-s 202.15] Donnelly v Jackman [1970] 1 WLR 562; 1 All ER 987 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.45], [8-s 546C.5] Donoghue v Coombe (1987) 45 SASR 330 . . .[8-s 117.15], [8-s 117.25] Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406 . . . .[8-s 117.15] Doolan v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 54 . .[5-s 21A.5] Douar v — (2005) 159 A Crim R 154 . . .[5-s 5.1] Dougan v — (2006) 160 A Crim R 135 .[5-s 21A.5] Douglas v Blackler [2001] NSWSC 901; BC200106390 . . . . .[21-s 48.25], [21-s 61.1] — v R [2005] NSWCCA 419; BC200511150 . .[8-s 418.1] Doumit v — [2011] NSWCCA 134; BC201104172 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1] Dover v Ridge (NSWSC, Dunford J, 30090/98, 3 September 1998, BC9805274) . .[21-s 48.25], [21-s 49.5] Downey v R (1994) 68 ALJR 371 . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] Dowse v NSW [2012] NSWCA 337; BC201208026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.5] Doyle v R [2014] NSWCCA 4; BC201400988 .[2-s 293.1] DPP v Harika [2001] VSC 237; BC200104512 .[9-s 16A.10] — v Zhang (2007) 48 MVR 78 . . . . . . .[1-455] Drew v R [2016] NSWCCA 310 . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Dryburgh v — (1961) 105 CLR 532; 35 ALJR 254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-505] Drymalik v Feldman [1966] SASR 227 .[21-s 99.5] DS v R [2012] NSWCCA 159; BC201205518 .[2-s 130.1] Duffield v — (1992) 28 NSWLR 638; 110 ALR 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.10], [7-010] Dunn v — (1986) 32 A Crim R 203 . .[10-s 10.15], [10-s 25.1] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 312; BC200709737 .[5-s 44.15]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxvi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 8 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:48 bwpageid:: 26:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Dunsmore v Weber (1988) 8 MVR 133 . . . . .[8-s 52A.40] Dupas v R (2010) 241 CLR 237; 267 ALR 1 . .[2-s 30.1] DW v — (2004) 150 A Crim R 139 . . .[2-s 133.1] Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52; BC201501468 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-6360.5] Dyers v R (2002) 210 CLR 285; 192 ALR 181 .[2-s 161.30] E (a Child) (1994) 13 WAR 1; 76 A Crim R 343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 206.10] Eager v Smith (1988) 38 A Crim R 272 .[10-s 3.10] Eastman v R (1997) 158 ALR 107; 76 FCR 9 .[2-s 222.25] Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; 176 ALR 644 . . . . . . . .[1-015] Edens v Cleary [1975] 1 NSWLR 278 . . . . . .[8-s 527C.25] Edwards v Macrae (1991) 14 MVR 193 .[8-s 52A.5] — v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; 117 ALR 600 . . .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.62] Eedens v — [2009] NSWCCA 254; BC200909053 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1] EG v — [2015] NSWCCA 21; BC201501032 . .[5-s 28.1] Egan v Bott [1985] VR 787 . . . . . . . . .[1-455] — v McLernon (1949) 51 WALR 83 . .[11-380.15] Einfeld v R (2008) 252 ALR 375; 51 MVR 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 312.5], [8-s 319.5] EK v — [2010] NSWCCA 199; BC201006600 .[2-s 306I.10] El Hassan v DPP [2000] NSWCA 330; BC200007117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.1] Eldridge v R [2011] NSWCCA 144; BC201104501 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 47.1] El-Hilli and Melville v — [2015] NSWCCA 146; 22(7) Crim LN [3550]; BC201505080 . . .[9-s 22.5] Elliot and Hitchens (1983) 9 A Crim R 238 . . .[8-s 98.5] Ellis v Fingleton (1972) 3 SASR 437 . .[11-125.20] — v Lawson (1987) 33 A Crim R 69 . .[2-s 16.20], [8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.20] Elsaj v R [2017] NSWCCA 124; BC201704369 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 53A.5] Elyard v — (2006) 45 MVR 402 . . . .[5-s 21A.1] El-Youssef v — [2010] NSWCCA 4; BC201000373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1] Emery v Magistrate of the Local Court at Tamworth (NSWSC, Sully J, 19 September 1990, BC9003273) . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.10] Emmerson v Clarke (1872) 3 QSCR 76 . . . . .[8-s 131.15] Employers Mutual Ltd v Heise [2018] NSWSC 1842 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Enriquez v R [2012] NSWCCA 60; BC201202127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5]

Environment Protection Authority v Alkem Drums Pty Ltd (2000) LGERA 130; 121 A Crim R 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 179.5] — v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 502; 64 A Crim R 124 . .[2-s 193.5] — v Waight (No 2) (1999) 109 A Crim R 288 .[2-s 227.1] ER v Khan [2015] NSWCCA 230; BC201510819 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 299B.5] Erickson v Pittard [1976] 2 NSWLR 528 . . .[10-s 11.1] Erohin v R [2006] NSWCCA; BC200601979 . .[2-s 161.45] Esso Australia Ltd v Curran (1989) 39 A Crim R 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.30], [21-s 49.5] Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 201 CLR 49; 168 ALR 123 . . . .[2-s 222.20], [2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] — v Plowman (1995) 183 CLR 10; 128 ALR 391 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] Evans v DPP [2000] NSWSC 1005; BC200006674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 208.1] — v Frances (NSWSC, Lusher J, 10 August 1990, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] Evgeniou v R (1964) 37 ALJR 508; [1965] ALR 209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525] Ewen v — [2015] NSWCCA 117; BC201504420 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45], [2-s 294AA.1] Ex parte Bignell (1915) 32 WN (NSW) 91 . . .[2-s 16.15] Ex parte Bluett; Re Nyngan Municipal Council (1929) 46 WN (NSW) 120; 9 LGR 72 . . .[2-s 16.15] Ex parte Bowman (1866) 6 SCR (NSW) 15 . . .[8-s 131.15] Ex parte Burnett; Re Wicks [1968] 2 NSWR 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Consolidated Press Ltd; Re Harris (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 261 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Corbishley; Re Locke [1967] 2 NSWR 547; (1967) 67 SR (NSW) 396; 86 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.30] Ex parte Cousens; Re Blacket (1946) 47 SR (NSW) 145; 63 WN (NSW) 228 . . . . . . . .[1-200] Ex parte Cunliffe (1871) 10 SCR (NSW) 250 . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Dustings; Re Jackson (1967) 87 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 98; [1968] 1 NSWR 257 . . .[2-s 36.5] Ex parte Ferguson; Re Alexander (1945) 45 SR (NSW) 64; 62 WN (NSW) 15 . .[8-s 417A.1] Ex parte Homer; Re McElligott (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 158 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5], [8-s 351B.1] Ex parte Johnstone (1935) 52 WN (NSW) 194 .[8-s 154A.10] Ex parte Kelly; Re Teece [1966] 2 NSWR 674; (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 151 . .[2-s 202.10], [2-s 202.30] Ex parte Kirkpatrick (1916) 16 SR (NSW) 541; 34

References are to paragraph numbers

xxvii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 9 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:50 bwpageid:: 27:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 WN (NSW) 15 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 153; 55 WN (NSW) 63 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte McDonald (1880) 1 LR(NSW) 252 . .[8-s 131.10] Ex parte McPherson (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 25 .[8-s 159.15], [8-s 527C.1], [11-230.5] Ex parte Miller; Re Hamilton (1934) 51 WN (NSW) 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.5] Ex parte O’Sullivan; Re Craig (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 291; 61 WN (NSW) 197 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.5] Ex parte Patmoy; Re Jack (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 351 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.10], [8-s 527C.20] Ex parte Powter; Re Powter (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 1; 63 WN (NSW) 34 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.15] Ex parte Pritchard (1914) 31 WN (NSW) 104 . .[8-s 502.5] Ex parte Reid; Re Lynch (1943) 43 SR (NSW) 207; 60 WN (NSW) 148 . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.15] Ex parte Schaefer; Re Field (1943) 60 WN (NSW) 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 179.5] Ex parte Stanton (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 516; 45 WN (NSW) 118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Walton (1885) 1 WN (NSW) 141 . . .[8-s 131.5] Ex parte Watts (1906) 23 WN (NSW) 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.15] Ex parte Wicks; Re Cameron (1935) 52 WN (NSW) 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.5] Ex parte Williams (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 140; 26 WN (NSW) 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Ex parte Wimborne (RJ) Pty Ltd; Re Beale [1958] SR (NSW) 353; 75 WN (NSW) 372 .[8-s 417A.1] Ex parte Work (1887) 3 WN (NSW) 125 . . . .[8-s 131.10] Fagan v Metropolitan Police Cmr [1969] 1 QB 439 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Fairclough v Whipp [1951] 2 All ER 834 .[8-s 58.5] Fan v R (1991) 103 ALR 485 . . . . . .[10-s 28.1] Fantakis v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWSC 685 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 219.1] Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; 210 ALR 50 . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 19.10] Farkas v R [2014] NSWCCA 141; BC201406199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.50] FB v — [2011] NSWCCA 217; BC201107721 .[2-s 132.1] Feather v Rogers (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 192; 26 WN (NSW) 27 . . . . . .[21-s 48.10], [21-s 48.15] Felix v Smerdon (1944) 18 ALJR 30 . .[2-s 16.15], [2-s 16.35] Fell v Chenhall [2018] NSWSC 1574; BC201809763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 172.5] Finch v R [2016] NSWCCA 133 . . . . .[10-s 4.1] Finnie v Dalglish (1982) 1 NSWLR 400 .[2-s 227.5] Firbank v R [2011] NSWCCA 171; BC201111030 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 105A.1], [8-s 112.7]

Fisher v Bennett (1987) 85 FLR 469 . .[8-s 192D.5] — v Godfrey (NSWSC, Enderby J, 17 February 1989, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 27.5] Fitzgerald v DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 45; 56 A Crim R 262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v Montoya (1989) 16 NSWLR 164 . .[11-140.5] — v R (1992) 106 FLR 331 . . . . . . . . .[7-640] Fleet v District Court of NSW [1999] NSWCA 363; BC9906539 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.5] Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; 158 ALR 379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 133.1] — v White [1981] 2 NSWLR 719; (1981) 7 A Crim R 448 . . .[1-005], [2-s 202.25], [8-Sch 2.1], [9-s 1.30], [9-s 66.15] Flynn v R [2010] NSWCCA 171; BC201005508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Foley v — (1984) 13 A Crim R 29 . . . . .[7-485] Forster v DPP [2017] NSWSC 458; BC201702770 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93X.10] Fosse v — (1989) 16 NSWLR 540; 42 A Crim R 289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 116.5] — v — [1999] NSWSC 367; BC9901959 . . . .[2-s 117.1], [2-s 214.1] Foster v R (1967) 118 CLR 117 . . . . .[8-s 118.1] Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426; [1959] 1 All ER 290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.30] FP v R [2012] NSWCCA 182; BC201206278 . .[8-s 61J.1] Francis v Flood [1978] 1 NSWLR 113 .[8-s 417A.1] Franklin v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWSC 310; BC201801667 .[2-s 222.25], [2-s 222.30] — v Durkin (NSWSC, Levine J, 21 October 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-390.10] Franks v Franks [2012] NSWCA 209; BC201205181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-5845.5], [8-6360.1] Fraser [2008] NSWSC 244; BC200803020 . . .[8-s 195.5] Fraser v R (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680; 19 A Crim R 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.1] Frawley v R (1993) 69 A Crim R 208; 18 Crim LJ 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 36.1] Frigiani v — [2007] NSWCCA 81; BC200702156 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Frodsham v O’Gorman [1979] 1 NSWLR 683 . .[1240], [2-s 207.1] Frost v R [1969] Tas SR 172 . . . . . .[2-s 161.20] Frugtniet v Garbutt [2003] NSWSC 770; BC200304815 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.30] FS v R [2009] NSWCCA 301; BC200911596 . .[5-s 23.1] Fullerton v Cmr of Police [1984] 1 NSWLR 159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 133.3] Furnell v Betts (1978) 20 SASR 300 . . . . .[1-455] Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 . .[2-s 132.1] Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69; BC201502779 .[2-s 161.62]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxviii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 10 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:53 bwpageid:: 28:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Gammage v — (1969) 122 CLR 444; [1970] ALR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 18.25] Ganin Burden and Creswell v NSW Crime Commission (1993) 32 NSWLR 423; 70 A Crim R 417 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 33.5] Ganke v Corporate Affairs Commission (1990) 19 NSWLR 449; 1 ACSR 764 . . . . .[2-s 179.5] Garde v Dowd (2011) 80 NSWLR 620 . .[8-6830.5] Gardiner v R [2018] NSWCCA 27; BC201801303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 47.1] Garrett v — (1977) 139 CLR 437; 18 ALR 237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] Gauci v Driscoll [1985] VR 428 . . . . .[10-s 40.1] Gaudie v Local Court of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1425; BC201313230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] GD v R [2018] NSWCCA 18; BC201800851 . .[2-s 294.5] GDD v — [2010] NSWCCA 62; BC201002181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-600] Gedeon v — [2013] NSWCCA 257; BC201314570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.20] GEH v — (2012) 228 A Crim R 32 . . .[2-s 293.1] George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; 93 ALR 483 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.1], [21-s 48.10] Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246; BC201008279 . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Gerakiteys v — (1984) 153 CLR 317 . .[2-cl 21.5] GG v — [2010] NSWCCA 230; BC201007553 .[2-s 161.45] GH Photography Pty Ltd v McGarrigle [1974] 2 NSWLR 635 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5] Ghamrawi v R [2017] NSWCCA 195; BC201707619 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 112.5] Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 QB 693; [1969] 3 All ER 1700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5] Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; 170 ALR 88 .[2-s 161.20] Gilham v — (2007) 73 NSWLR 308; 178 A Crim R 72 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 153.1] Gill Herron v Walton (1991) 25 NSWLR 190 . .[2-s 19.5] Gillard v R (2003) 219 CLR 1; 202 ALR 202 . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 18.25] Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 605; 49 FLR 36 . .[2-s 14.1], [2-s 16.35] Gilroy v Jebara (1992) 29 NSWLR 20 . . . . . .[8-s 527C.30] Gilson v R (1991) 172 CLR 353; 100 ALR 729 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 121.5] Giorgianni v — (1985) 156 CLR 473; 58 ALR 641; 2 MVR 97 . . . .[8-s 52A.5], [8-s 52A.20], [8-s 117.35], [8-s 351.15], [8-s 351B.10], [10-s 10.15], [10-s 19.1], [10-s 27.1] Glenister v — [1980] 2 NSWLR 597; (1980) 3 A Crim R 210 . . . . . .[8-s 125.25], [8-s 134.5] Glover v — [2016] NSWCCA 316; BC201611040 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91D.25], [8-s 91F.15]

Gollan v Nugent (1988) 166 CLR 18; 82 ALR 193 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5], [21-s 219.5] Gordon v R [2018] NSWCCA 54; BC201802176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Gore v — [2010] NSWCCA 330; BC201010021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Gorman v Fitzpatrick (1987) 32 A Crim R 330 .[2-s 285.1] Goss v Nicholas [1960] Tas SR 133 . . .[8-s 58.25] Gouldham v R [1970] WAR 119 . . . . . . .[7-485] Gower v — (1991) 56 A Crim R 115 . .[5-s 44.15] GP v — [2016] NSWCCA 150; BC201606403 .[2-s 293.1] Graham v — (1998) 195 CLR 606; 157 ALR 404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.10] Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2019] HCA 8; BC201901701 . . .[8-s 195.5] — v DPP (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 251; BC201708844 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 195.5] Grant, Appeal of (1981) 6 Petty SR 2568 . . .[21-s 219.5] Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674; 11 ALR 577; 51 ALJR 198 . . . . .[2-s 222.20.5], [21-s 48.40] — v R (1975) 11 ALR 503 . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v — (1981) 147 CLR 503; 35 ALR 97 . . . .[8-s 527C.1] Grassby v — (1989) 168 CLR 1; 87 ALR 618 . .[1020], [1-200], [2-s 8.10], [2-s 227.10] Gray v — [2018] NSWCCA 39; BC201805764 .[5-s 21A.5] Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95; 110 ALR 577 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-485] Grealish v R [2013] NSWCCA 336; BC201316196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Green v — (1971) 126 CLR 28; [1972] ALR 524; 46 ALJR 545 . . . . . .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.25] — v — (1997) 191 CLR 334; 148 ALR 659; 72 ALJR 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] Greenbury v Lyon [1957] QSR 433 . . .[8-s 58.30] Greentree v R [2018] NSWCCA 227; BC201809607 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Greer v Cmr of NSW Police (2002) 128 A Crim R 586 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5], [21-s 49.45] Grey v R (2001) 184 ALR 593; 75 ALJR 1708 .[2-s 142.5] Griffiths v — (1977) 137 CLR 293; 15 ALR 1 .[5-s 11.1], [7-170] Grills v — (1996) 70 ALJR 905; [1996] 15 Leg Rep C2a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] Hadba v — (2004) 182 FLR 472; 146 A Crim R 291 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 428A.1], [8-s 428G.1] Hadchiti v — (2016) 93 NSWLR 671 .[2-s 161.10] Haggard v Mason [1976] 1 All ER 337; 1 WLR 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 40.1] Haidy v DPP [2004] VSC 247; BC200404078 .[9-s 19.10]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 11 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:54 bwpageid:: 29:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Haines v R [2016] NSWCCA 90; BC201603556 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Haken v Johnson (NSWSC, Wood J, 15 October 1993, BC9302396) . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.10] Hall v R [2015] NSWCCA 298; BC201511627 .[2-s 263.5] — v — (1988) 36 A Crim R 368 . . . .[8-s 23A.10] Halliday v Neville (1984) 155 CLR 1; 57 ALR 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.25] Hammersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (1998) 19 WAR 316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] Hammond [v R (2013) 85 NSWLR 313; 231 A Crim R 373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 195.5] Hampton, Application of (1972) 3 DCR 59 . .[21-s 219.1] Hampton v R [2014] NSWCCA 131; BC201405594 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1] Hamze v — [2006] NSWCCA 36; BC200601102 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] Hamzy v — (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 . .[2-s 16.25], [10-s 25.1], [10-s 33.5] Hanna v Horler (1999) 154 FLR 166 . . .[2-s 117.5] — v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 390; 191 A Crim R 302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.12] Haoui v — [2008] NSWCCA 209; BC200807970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.1] Hardie v R; Phillipsen v R [2012] NSWCCA 6; BC201200770 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] Hardman v Minehan (2003) 57 NSWLR 390 . .[8-s 93G.15] Hargraves v R (2011) 282 ALR 214 . .[2-s 161.35] Harkins v — [2015] NSWCCA 263; BC201509456 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.5] Harrigan v — (2005) 45 MVR 352 . . . .[5-s 55.1] Harris v Harrison [1963] Crim LR 497 .[8-s 117.35] Harrison v Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 QB 142 .[8-s 58.30] — v Hodgson [1830] 10 B Cr 445 . . . .[8-s 58.40] Hartingdon v Director-General of Department of Community Services (1993) 17 Fam LR 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020] Hartnett v NSW [1999] NSWSC 265; BC9901190 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 71.1], [21-s 76.5] Hasan v R (2010) 31 VR 28; 222 A Crim R 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.15] Hatfield v — [2011] NSWCCA 286; BC201110711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1982] AC 136; [1981] 3 WLR 395 . . . . .[2-s 202.1], [7-525] Hawes v Governor of Goulburn Correctional Centre (NSWCA, Mason P, Handley and Cole JJA, 40638/97, 18 December 1997, BC9707659) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 138.1] Hawkins v R [2011] NSWCCA 153; BC201106353 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Hayes v DPP (NSW) [2019] NSWSC 378; BC201902606 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 182.1]

— v Wilson [1984] 2 Qd R 114; 1 MVR 198 . .[2-s 16.35] Hayward v R [2018] NSWCCA 104; BC201804516 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 128.1] He Kaw Teh v — (1985) 157 CLR 523; 60 ALR 449; 15 A Crim R 203 .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.5], [10-s 10.15] Healey v Williams (1985) 10 FCR 254; 64 ALR 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 116.1] Heard v R (1987) 11 NSWLR 46; 34 A Crim R 320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 23.1] Heatley v — [2008] NSWCCA 229; BC200808653 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Hedges v — [2011] NSWCCA 263; BC201110712 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] Heinze v Burnley (1992) 57 SASR 452; 17 MVR 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Hejazi v R [2009] NSWCCA 282; BC200910598 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 44.15] Henderson v — [2016] NSWCCA 8; BC201600429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Hernandez v — [2013] NSWCCA 51; BC201300863 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Heron v — (2003) 140 A Crim R 317; 197 ALR 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] Herron v McGregor (1986) 6 NSWLR 246 .[7-220] Hewitt v R (2007) 180 A Crim R 306 . .[5-s 21A.5] HG v — (1999) 197 CLR 414; 160 ALR 554 . .[2-s 293.1] Hibbert v McKiernan [1948] 2 KB 142 . . . . .[8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.15] Hildebrandt v Stephen [1964] NSWR 740 . . . .[8-s 56.10] Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; 272 ALR 465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] Hills v Henderson (1991) 9 Petty SR 4120 . . .[10-s 30.1] Hinchliffe v Sheldon [1955] 1 WLR 1207; 3 All ER 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.50] Hoare v R (1989) 167 CLR 348 . . . . . .[5-s 33.5] Hoch v — (1988) 165 CLR 292; 81 ALR 225 .[2-s 21.15] Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149 . . .[10-s 3.20] — v R (1993) 117 ALR 193 . . . .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.20] Holloway v — [2015] NSWCCA 207; BC201507292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 556.1] Holmden and Crawford v Bitar (1987) 75 ALR 522; 47 SASR 509; 75 ALR 522 . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Holohan v R [2012] NSWCCA 105; BC201203646 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 95.10] Homsi v — [2011] NSWCCA 164; BC201105612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.1] Horne v Coleman (1929) 46 WN (NSW) 30 . .[8-s 58.55], [8-s 546C.15] Horowitz v Condie (1989) 41 A Crim R 285 . .[21-s 48.25]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxx

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 12 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:55 bwpageid:: 30:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Hoskins v van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020] Hosler v Maughan (1989) 40 A Crim R 281 .[1-015] Hosseini v R [2009] NSWCCA 52; BC200901266 . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 24.33], [10-s 25.73] House v — (1936) 55 CLR 499; 10 ALJR 202 .[2-s 40.1] Howard v — [2019] NSWCCA 109; BC201904867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Huang aka Liu v — [2018] NSWCCA 70; BC201803059 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Huang v — [2017] NSWCCA 312; BC201710923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Hudson v — [2016] NSWCCA 278; BC201610294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Hughes v — (2008) 49 MVR 420; 185 A Crim R 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 47.1], [8-s 52A.45] Humes v Townsend (1989) 4 WAR 196 . . . . .[8-s 117.20] Humphries v R [2015] NSWCCA 319; BC201512560 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 157.5] Hunt v — [2017] NSWCCA 305; BC201710690 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Huynh v — (2013) 295 ALR 624; 87 ALJR 434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.1] Hyder v Commonwealth [2012] NSWCA 336; BC201208863 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.10] Iannella v French (1968) 119 CLR 84; [1968] ALR 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 22A.1] Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447; 74 ALR 1 . . . .[5-s 21.1], [5-s 61.1] Ibrahim v — [2014] NSWCCA 160; BC201406502 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.4] Ignjatic v — (1993) 68 A Crim R 333 .[2-s 21.15], [8-s 23A.1] IL v — (2017) 345 ALR 375; 91 ALJR 764 . .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.20] Ilich v — (1986) 162 CLR 110; 69 ALR 231 . .[8-s 117.5], [8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.20], [8-s 117.55], [8-s 125.20] Ingleton v Dibble [1972] 1 All ER 275 .[8-s 58.50] Inglis v Fish [1961] VR 607 . . . . . . .[11-125.20] Iqbal v R [2012] NSWCCA 72; BC201210938 .[2-s 8.10] Isaac v — [2012] NSWCCA 195; BC201207151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Ishac v — (2011) 211 A Crim R 102 . . .[8-s 312.5] Itaoui v — (2005) 158 A Crim R 233 . . .[5-s 44.5] Ith v — [2012] NSWCCA 70; BC201206758 . .[2-s 161.1] J Robins and Sons Ltd v Maloney (No 2) [1935] AR (NSW) 155; (1935) IR 155 . . . . .[2-s 179.5] Jackson v R (1918) 25 CLR 113 . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v — (1976) 134 CLR 42; 9 ALR 65 . . . . .[2-s 161.25] — v — (1988) 33 A Crim R 413 . . . . .[5-s 21.1]

— v Wells (1985) 5 FCR 296; 59 ALR 281 . . .[2-s 228.5] JAD v R [2012] NSWCCA 73; BC201202978 .[8-s 73.1] Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; 87 ALR 577; 41 A Crim R 307 . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 192.5], [7-220] JAL and LL, In the Appeals of (1974) 3 DCR 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.35] Jamal v DPP [2013] NSWCA 355; BC201314135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 40.1] James v R (2014) 306 ALR 1; 88 ALJR 427 . .[2-s 161.20] Jamieson v — (1993) 177 CLR 574; 116 ALR 193 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v — [1988] VR 879; (1987) 34 A Crim R 308 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 249B.10] — v — (1992) 60 A Crim R 68 . . . . . . .[7-485] Jarret v — [2014] NSWCCA 140; BC201406013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 306S.1] Jeffs v Graham (1987) 8 NSWLR 292; Petty SR 3463 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.10] Jensen v Eleftheriou [1982] VR 184 .[8-s 546C.15] Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277; BC201008919 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40], [2-s 161.45] Jidah v — [2014] NSWCCA 270; BC201410327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.15] Jiminez v — (1992) 173 CLR 572; 106 ALR 162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.5] Jitjarden v Thompson (1995) 38 NSWLR 611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-390.5] JL v R [2014] NSWCCA 130; BC201405598 . .[5-s 23.1], [5-s 53A.5] JM v — [2014] NSWCCA 297 . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Johanson v Dixon (1979) 143 CLR 376; 25 ALR 65; 53 ALJR 494 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93X.10] John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 . . . . . . . .[2-s 57.1] John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131; 59 A Crim R 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020] John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; 50 ACSR 380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020], [7-810] — v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; 220 ALR 248 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 57.5], [8-5135.1] John L Pty Ltd v A-G (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508; 73 ALR 545 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.1], [2-s 11.1] John Lewis & Co Ltd v Tims [1952] AC 676; [1952] 1 All ER 1203 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.30] Johns v R (1980) 143 CLR 108; 28 ALR 155 . .[8-s 351B.5] Johnson v DPP (1996) 2 NSWCR 83 . .[2-s 193.5], [8-s 52AA.1] — v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; 174 ALR 655 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] — v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; 11 ALJR 344; [1938]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 13 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:57 bwpageid:: 31:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 ALR 104 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.5], [2-s 16.35] — v R (1976) 136 CLR 619; 11 ALR 23; 51 ALJR 57; (1977) 51 ALJR 57 . . . .[8-s 23.1], [8-s 23.3] — v — (2004) 205 ALR 346; 78 ALJR 616 . .[5-s 55.1] Johnston v — [2007] NSWCCA 133; BC200703591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] — v — [2019] NSWCCA 108; BC201904295 .[8-s 319.5] Jones v Daire (1983) 32 SASR 369 . .[8-s 546C.10] — v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] ALR 367 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30] — v Stephens (NSWSC, McInerney J, 8 October 1985, unreported) . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.40] Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286; BC201610577 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 21A.25] Jordan v Burgoyne [1963] 2 QB 744 . .[11-125.10] Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41; BC201001109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] JSM v — [2010] NSWCCA 255; BC2011010646 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 129.1] Justins v — [2010] NSWCCA 242; BC201008007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50] JW v Blackley (2007) 172 A Crim R 483 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-1535.5] K v Minister for Youth and Community Services [1982] 1 NSWLR 311; (1982) 8 Fam LR 756 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 84.5] Kahatapitiye v R (2004) 146 A Crim R 542 . . .[2-s 16.1] Kalache v — (2000) 21(20) Leg Rep C3b . . . .[5-s 23.1] Kamara v DPP [1974] AC 104 . . . . .[8-s 545C.5] Kamm v R [2007] NSWCCA 201; BC200705305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 20.1] Kanaan v — [2006] NSWCCA 109; BC200602243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] Kassis v Katsantonis [1984] 3 NSWLR 330 . . .[8-s 117.50] Katsis v R [2018] NSWCCA 9; BC201800619 .[5-s 21A.5] Kelleher v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 423; 29 A Crim R 1 . .[8-s 310D.10] Kelly v R (2004) 218 CLR 216; 205 ALR 274 .[2-s 281.1] Kennedy v — [2017] NSWCCA 193; BC201706271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61H.10] Kennett v Holt [1974] VR 644 . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Kennison v Daire (1985) 38 SASR 404 .[8-s 117.20] — v — (1986) 160 CLR 129; 64 ALR 17 . . . .[8-s 117.20] Kerr v Cmr of Police [2001] NSWSC 637; BC200104228 . . . .[21-1230.1], [21-1595.1], [21-2385.1] Khawaja v R [2014] NSWCCA 80; BC201404948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5]

Khoury v — (2011) 209 A Crim R 509 .[5-s 54B.5] Killick v — (1981) 147 CLR 565; 37 ALR 407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-495] King v — (1986) 161 CLR 423; 67 ALR 379 . .[2-s 16.5], [2-s 161.20] — v — (2012) 288 ALR 565; 86 ALJR 833 . .[8-s 52A.5] — v — [2010] NSWCCA 33; BC201001247 . .[5-s 21A.5] Kings Cross Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Inc v Uniting Church of Australia Property Trust (NSW) (2001) 160 FLR 300 . . .[10-s 36A.1] Kinney v Police [1971] NZLR 924 . . .[11-125.10] Klewer v Walton [2004] FCA 410; BC200401696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 213.1] Knaggs v DPP (2007) 170 A Crim R 366 . . . .[2-s 175.1] Knezevic v Markovic (1985) 5 FCR 219; 59 ALR 557 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 556.1] Knight v R (1992) 175 CLR 495; 109 ALR 225; 66 ALJR 860 . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15], [8-s 27.15] — v — [2010] NSWCCA 51; BC201002115 . .[5-s 21A.5] — v — (2006) 164 A Crim R 126 . . . . .[5-s 61.1] KNP v — (2006) 67 NSWLR 227 . . . .[2-s 160.1] Kolalich v DPP (1991) 173 CLR 222; 103 ALR 630; 66 ALJR 25 . . . . . . . . .[1-225], [8-s 23.3] Kolosque v Miyazaki (NSWSC, Dowd J, 17 February 1995, BC9501931) . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.20] Krakouer v R (1998) 194 CLR 202; 155 ALR 586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 29.5] Krecichwost v — (2012) 88 ACSR 339 . .[8-s 4B.5] KRM v — (2001) 206 CLR 221; 178 ALR 385 .[2-s 161.45] KS v Veitch (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 266; BC201209735 . .[2-s 296.5], [2-s 298.5], [2-s 299B.5], [2-s 299D.1] KSC v R [2012] NSWCCA 179; BC201210760 .[2-s 296.5], [2-s 298.5], [8-s 61H.10] Kukovec v — [2014] NSWCCA 308; BC201410600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Kupferberg v — (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 166 . .[2-s 193.5] Kural v — (1987) 162 CLR 502; 70 ALR 658 .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.15] Kuru v New South Wales (2008) 236 CLR 1; 246 ALR 260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 82.1] Kwok v R [2018] NSWCCA 200; BC201808717 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] L v Johnson [2003] NSWSC 1246; BC200308046 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Lyons (2002) 56 NSWLR 600; (2002) 137 A Crim R 93; 56 NSWLR 600 . . . .[21-1505.1], [21-1535.5] La Fontaine v R (1976) 136 CLR 62; 11 ALR 307 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10], [8-s 18.5] Lacey v DPP (Qld) [2007] QCA 413; BC200710074

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 14 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:28:58 bwpageid:: 32:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.10] Lam v R (1991) 53 A Crim R 118 . . . . .[5-s 21.1] Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533; 76 FLR 296; 5 ALD 446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-270] Lane v R [2013] NSWSC 146; BC201300840 .[9-s 22.5] — v — [2017] NSWCCA 46; BC201701823 . .[2-s 161.7] — v — (2013) 241 A Crim R 321 . . .[2-s 161.62] Larsson v Cmr of Police (1988) 16 NSWLR 173; 40 A Crim R 301 . . . . . .[21-s 49.1], [21-s 49.10] Latham v R (1864) 9 Cox CC 516 . . . .[2-s 21.5] Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; 97 ALR 45 . .[2-s 117.10], [2-s 213.15], [2-s 214.10], [2-s 215.1] Laughton v R [2019] NSWCCA 74; BC201902639 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] Lawler v Johnson (2002) 56 NSWLR 1; 134 A Crim R 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 84.1] Lawless v R (1979) 142 CLR 659; 26 ALR 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] Lawrence v — (1981) 38 ALR 1 . . . . . . .[7-495] Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 71; 93 ALR 435 . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Lawson v Wallace (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) 505 . .[2-s 208.5] Lay v Cleary (NSWSC, James J, 23 February 1993, BC9303691) . . . . . .[2-s 208.1], [2-s 208.5] Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15; BC201900524 . .[5-s 21A.5] Leeth v Cth (1992) 174 CLR 455; 107 ALR 672 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] Leigh v Cole (1853) 6 Cox CC 329 . .[21-s 99.35] Lenthall v Cavender [1931] SASR 164 .[11-380.15] Leonard v Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528 . . . . .[8-s 546C.10] Levinge v Director of Custodial Services (1987) 9 NSWLR 546; 89 FLR 133 . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Lewis v Cox [1985] 1 QB 509 . . . . . .[8-s 58.50] — v Sergeant Riley [2017] NSWCA 272; BC201709036 . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-2230.1] Leydon v Forrest (1980) 23 SASR 364 .[2-s 179.5] Liang v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 39; 124 FLR 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21.1] Liberato v — (1985) 159 CLR 507; 61 ALR 623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] Lindsay v — (2015) 146 ALD 456; 319 ALR 207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] Linney v — [2013] NSWCCA 251; BC201314326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 326.15] Lippl v Haines (1989) 18 NSWLR 620; 47 A Crim R 148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 10.1] Liu v R [2005] NSWCCA 450; BC200511590 .[5-s 54B.1] Livermore v — (2006) 67 NSWLR 659 . . .[7-600] Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288;

47 ALR 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Llewellyn v R [2011] NSWCCA 66; BC201102125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30] Lloyd v Bibbin [1962] VR 593 . . . . . . . .[1-210] — v R [2017] NSWCCA 303; BC201710949 . .[5-s 21A.5] Lodhi v — (2006) 199 FLR 303 . . .[2-s 11.1], [2-s 11.10] Long v Rawlins (1874) 4 QSCR 86 . . .[8-s 56.10] Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79; 89 ALR 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 133.1], [2-s 161.40] Longworth v — [2017] NSWCCA 119; BC201704183 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Lorraway v — [2010] NSWCCA 46; BC201002173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] Lose v Brown (NSWSC, Yeldham J, 24 October 1986, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.20] Losurdo v R (1998) 101 A Crim R 162 . .[2-s 85.1] Louizos v — [2009] NSWCCA 71; BC200901713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] Lowe v Hooker [1987] Tas R 153; (1987) 35 A Crim R 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.30] Lu v R [2014] NSWCCA 307; BC201411201 . .[5-s 21A.5] Ludwigs Canberra Bond Cellar Pty Ltd v Sheen (1982) 46 ACTR 13; 65 FLR 347 .[2-s 202.15] Lule v New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 125; BC201804938 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.10] Ly v Jenkins (2001) 114 FCR 237; 187 ALR 178 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 116.15], [2-s 213.15] Lynch v Attwood (1983) 3 NSWLR 1 .[8-s 417A.1] Lyndon v R [2014] NSWCCA 112; BC201404949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] Lynn v New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57; BC201601901 . . . .[29-950.10], [29-954E.5], [29-973.5] M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69; 82 ALR 577; 63 ALJR 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 19.10] — v R (1993) 67 A Crim R 549 . . . . .[2-s 293.1] Ma and Pham v — [2007] NSWCCA 240; BC200706635 . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] Mac v — [2014] NSWCCA 24 . . . . . .[2-s 21.5] MacCarron v Coles Supermarkets Aus Pty Ltd (2001) 23 WAR 355 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] MacGibbon v Warner (1997) 98 A Crim R 450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.30] Mackay v R (1977) 136 CLR 465; 15 ALR 541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.1], [2-s 21.10] Mackinlay v Wiley [1971] WAR 3 . . . .[11-135.5] Maclay v R (1990) 19 NSWLR 112; 46 A Crim R 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] Macpherson v Beath (1975) 12 SASR 174 . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Brown (1975) 12 SASR 184 . . . . .[8-s 58.5] MacPherson v R (1981) 147 CLR 512; 37 ALR 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-405]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxiii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 15 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:0 bwpageid:: 33:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Macrae v Redmond (1987) 8 Petty SR 3534

. .[2-s 190.1] Madden v R [2014] NSWCCA 291; BC201410245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 193D.10] Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 . .[2-s 36.5] Maglis v R [2010] NSWCCA 247; BC201008612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Maglovski v — [2014] NSWCCA 238; BC201409197 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Maher v — (1987) 163 CLR 221; 72 ALR 351 .[2-s 21.1] Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; 241 ALR 606 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] Makarov v R (No 4) [2008] NSWCCA 341; BC200813578 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 59.5] Makrynikos v R [2006] NSWCCA 170; BC200603847 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Mallard v — (2005) 224 CLR 125; 222 ALR 236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 142.5] Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v — (1963) 111 CLR 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.60] Mann v Carnell (1999) 201 CLR 1; 168 ALR 86 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20], [2-s 222.20.5] — v R [2016] NSWCCA 10; BC201600815 . .[8-s 93C.10] Manning v Thompson [1977] 2 NSWLR 249 . .[2-s 202.10] Mansfield v Kelly [1972] VR 744 . . . .[11-125.15] Many v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 54 . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Mapp v — [2010] NSWCCA 269; BC201009500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 112.20] Maraache v — [2013] NSWCCA 199 .[2-s 161.30] Marinko v Rames (NSWSC, Hope J, 13 August 1971, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5] Marinovich (1990) 46 A Crim R 282 . .[10-s 25.50] Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; 215 ALR 213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1], [5-s 33.5] Markisic v Vizza [2002] NSWCCA 53; BC200200834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 212.1] Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64; BC201203093 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 59.5] Marlow v — [1990] 1 Tas SR 1 . . . . .[2-s 193.1], [7-170] Marshall v Benson [1970] 1 NSWR 458; (1969) 72 SR (NSW) 151; 91 WN(NSW) 280 . . . .[10-s 10.10] Martin v Pridgeon (1859) 23 JP 630 . . .[2-s 16.35] — v R [2014] NSWCCA 124; BC201405388 . .[5-s 53A.5] Masciantonio v — (1995) 183 CLR 58; 129 ALR 575; 69 ALJR 598 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] Mason v Lyon [2005] NSWSC 804; BC200505736 . . . . . . . . .[1-480], [2-s 38.1], [2-s 160.1] Massey v R (1995) 13 Leg Rep C14 . . .[2-s 19.5] Masters v Watt (1992) 10 Petty SR 4507 .[8-s 58.5]

Mattar v R [2012] NSWCCA 98; BC201203260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 57.1] Matthews v Fountain [1982] VR 1045 .[8-s 192D.5] Matu v R [2019] NSWCCA 23; BC201900782 .[5-s 21A.5] Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645 . . . .[2-s 190.1] — v R (1996) 184 CLR 501; 135 ALR 1 . . . .[2-s 153.1], [2-s 193.1], [2-s 207.1], [7-105], [7-170] May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; [1955] ALR 671 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-485], [7-525] Mazjoub v Kepreokis [2009] NSWSC 314; BC200903138 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.25] McAndrew v R [2016] NSWCCA 58; BC201602668 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5] McCabe v BAT Aust Services Ltd [2002] VSC 150; BC200202143 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] McCarthy v R (1993) 71 A Crim R 395 . . . . .[2-s 161.55], [8-s 188.25] McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v EPA (NSWCCA, Cole, Sully JJA and Adams AJ, 60386/1996; 60387/1996, 25 October 1996, BC9606890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] McCormack v Langham (1990) 9 Petty SR 4265 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] McCullough v R [1982] Tas R 43; (1982) 6 A Crim R 274 . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1], [7-475], [7-600] — v — (2009) 194 A Crim R 439 .[5-s 21A.5], [8-s 33.20] McDonald v Camerotto (1984) 36 SASR 66; 14 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-460] McDonnell v Smith (1918) 24 CLR 409 .[2-s 14.1] McIlwraith v R [2017] NSWCCA 13; BC201700871 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-5250.5] McIntosh v — [2015] NSWCCA 184; BC201506297 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] McIntyre v — (2009) 198 A Crim R 549 . . . .[8-s 58.57], [8-s 59.5], [8-s 61.7] McIvor v — [2010] NSWCCA 7; BC201000443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.20] McKell v — [2019] HCA 5; BC201900676 . . .[2-s 161.25] McKellar v DPP (2014) 240 A Crim R 285 . . .[2-s 192.1], [2-s 196.1] McLachlan v Mesics (1966) 40 ALJR 204 . . .[8-s 58.45] — v — (1966) 116 CLR 340 . . . . .[8-s 546C.15] McLean v Case and Deignan Pty Ltd [1961] NSWR 873; 78 WN (NSW) 476; 6 LGRA 395 . .[2-s 16.35] McLiney v Minister [1911] VLR 347; 17 ALR 336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.45] Medina v R (1990) 3 WAR 21; 46 A Crim R 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] Meehan v Cmr of Police [1991] ANZ ConvR 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.40] Meggitt Overseas Ltd v Grdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxiv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 16 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:1 bwpageid:: 34:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES 527 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 190.1] Mehajer v R [2014] NSWCCA 167; BC201406853 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 249B.10], [8-s 249B.15] Meissner v — (1995) 184 CLR 132; 130 ALR 547 . . . . . . .[2-s 154.5], [2-s 207.1], [8-s 319.5] Meller v Low (2000) 48 NSWLR 517 . . .[8-s 60.5] Melser v Police [1967] NZLR 437 . .[21-s 206.10] Mencarious v R (2008) 189 A Crim R 219 . . .[2-s 161.1] Mendham v — (1993) 71 A Crim R 382 . . . .[2-s 285.1] Merrick v — [2017] NSWCCA 264; BC201709793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] MG v — (2007) 69 NSWLR 20 . . . . .[2-s 19.10] Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; 86 ALJR 14 . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Michaels v R (1995) 184 CLR 117; 130 ALR 581; 69 ALJR 686 . . . . .[8-s 310D.10], [21-s 99.20] Mifsud v — [2009] NSWCCA 313; BC200911592 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.30] Mikic v Local Court of NSW [2013] NSWSC 334; BC201301852 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.2] Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29; BC201401528 . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 25F.1] Milgate v R (1964) 38 ALJR 162 . . . .[2-s 161.12] Mill v — (1988) 166 CLR 59; 83 ALR 1; 36 A Crim R 468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] Miller v Page (1983) 6 Petty SR 2854 .[10-s 3.25], [10-s 40.1] — v Sweeney (2000) 157 FLR 1 . . . .[21-s 48.25], [21-s 48.50] Milne v Mutch [1927] VLR 190 . . . . .[11-125.15] Minehan v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 243 .[8-s 91H.1] Minigall v McCammon [1970] SASR 82 . . . .[8-s 117.20], [8-s 117.25] Minister for Immigration v Dela Cruz (1992) 34 FCR 348; 110 ALR 367 . . . . . . . .[8-s 192G.20] Mitchell v Nestle Australia Ltd (1988) 36 A Crim R 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.1] — v Norman [1965] Qd R 587 . . . . . .[8-s 58.30] MJ v R [2013] NSWCCA 250; BC201314495 .[2-s 16.1] MM v — [2011] NSWCCA 262; BC201110755 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.1] — v — [2018] NSWCCA 158; BC201806669 .[8-s 61J.2] Moage Ltd v Jagelman (2002) 43 ACSR 173 . .[2-s 228.10] Moffa v R (1977) 138 CLR 601; 13 ALR 225; 51 ALJR 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] Moore v — [2016] NSWCCA 185; BC201607068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v — [2016] NSWCCA 260; BC201610237 .[8-s 192B.15] Moors v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265; 25 ALR 213 . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.10], [10-s 10.25]

Morgan v Babcock and Wilcox Ltd (1929) 43 CLR 163; [1929] ALR 313 . . . . . . .[2-s 179.10] — v Colman (1981) 27 SASR 334 . . . .[8-s 58.25] Morris v R [2010] NSWCCA 152; BC201005732 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-575] Morrison v Dartbrook Coal Pty Ltd (2002) 116 IR 252; [2002] NSWIR Comm 127 . . .[2-s 14.1] — v R [2009] NSWCCA 211; BC200907698 . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 21A.10] — v United Collierier Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIR Comm 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Morrissey v R (NSWCCA, 15 July 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Morton v — [2014] NSWCCA 8; BC201400992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Moss v Brown [1979] 1 NSWLR 114 . . . .[1-200] Moukhallaletti v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) [2016] NSWCCA 314; BC201610839 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5] Moussa v R [2017] NSWCCA 237; BC201708243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] Moyse v — (1988) 38 A Crim R 169 . . .[5-s 55.1] MPB v — (2013) 234 A Crim R 576 .[5-s 25AA.1] Mraz v — (1955) 93 CLR 493; [1955] ALR 929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.1] — v R (No 2) (1956) 96 CLR 62; [1956] 63 ALR 999; (1956) 30 ALJR 604; [1956] ALR 999 . .[2-s 193.5], [8-s 18.20] MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260; BC201109746 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Muggleton v — [2015] NSWCCA 62; BC201502535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 28.1] Muldrock v — (2011) 244 CLR 120; 281 ALR 652; (2011) 281 ALR 652; 85 ALJR 1154 . . .[5-s 3A.1], [5-s 54A.1], [5-s 54A.5], [5-s 54B.5] Mullins v Lillyman (2007) 169 A Crim R 571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-1535.5] Munday v Gill (1930) 44 CLR 38; [1930] ALR 313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-100], [8-s 545C.10] Murphy v Porter (1984) 12 A Crim R 38 . . . .[8-s 188.30] — v R (1989) 167 CLR 94; 86 ALR 35 .[2-s 40.1], [21-s 48.50] — v — (1988) 52 SASR 186; 37 A Crim R 405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 153.1] Murray v — (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; 30 A Crim R 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40], [8-s 61I.5] — v — (2002) 211 CLR 193; 189 ALR 40 . . .[8-s 18.15] Muscat v Vucko (NSWSC, Studdert J, 28 June 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-460] MWJ v R (2005) 222 ALR 436; 80 ALJR 329 .[2-s 161.40] Myers v Claudianos (1990) 100 FLR 362 . . . .[2-s 202.1] — v Simpson (1965) 6 FLR 440; [1965] ALR 1148 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.15]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 17 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:4 bwpageid:: 35:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Nalberski v R (1989) 44 A Crim R 434 .[2-s 285.1] Nash v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd; Attorney General (NSW) v Silver City Drilling (NSW) Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCCA 96; BC201703462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 257B.1] Nassr v R [2015] NSWCCA 284; BC201511144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.20] National Employers Mutual General Association Ltd v Waind [1978] 1 NSWLR 372 . .[2-s 222.10], [2-s 227.1] Neal v R (1982) 149 CLR 305 . . . . . .[5-s 54B.5] Neale, Re an Application for Bail [2013] QSC 310; BC201314420 . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.10] New South Wales Commissioner of Police v Tuxford [2002] NSWCA 139; BC200202538 . . . .[2-s 222.10], [2-s 227.1], [2-s 228.1] New South Wales Meat Industry Authority v Randall (NSWCA, 20 April 1994, BC9402484) . .[2-s 208.5] New South Wales v Beck [2013] NSWCA 437; BC201315785 . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.15] — v Bouffler (2017) 95 NSWLR 521 . . .[21-s 9.1], [21-s 9.5], [21-s 10.10] — v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976; BC201106939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-950.5] — v Corbett (2007) 230 CLR 606; 237 ALR 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 60.1] — v Darrego [2011] NSWSC 1449; BC201109226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-950.5] — v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 280; BC201508975 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-954E.5], [29-973.5] — v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242; BC200810289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-956.5], [29-965.5] — v Richardson (No 2) (2011) 210 A Crim R 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 19.10] — v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496 . . .[21-s 99.15] — v Ryan (1998) 101 LGERA 246 . . .[2-s 222.25] — v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 662 . . . .[21-s 9.1] — v Windle (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 727; BC201704379 . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-959.1] Newman v R [2018] NSWCCA 208; BC201808949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Ng v Haskett [2002] NSWSC 258; BC200201396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-460], [7-505] — v R (2003) 217 CLR 521; 197 ALR 10 . . .[2-s 131.1] Nguyen v — [2015] NSWCCA 78; BC201503259 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 14; BC200700369 . .[5-s 55.1] — v Tao v R [2018] NSWCCA 176; BC201807051 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25A.2] Nicholls v R; Coates v R (2005) 213 ALR 1; (2005) 79 ALJR 468 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] Niven v R (1968) 118 CLR 513; [1969] ALR 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-575]

NM v — [2012] NSWCCA 215; BC201208029 .[8-s 61I.65] Norris v — (2007) 176 A Crim R 42 . .[2-s 161.1] North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146; 206 ALR 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-001] Noufl v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) [2018] NSWSC 1238; BC201806995 . . .[9-s 48.10] NW v R [2014] NSWCCA 217; BC201408698 .[8-s 91FB.1] Nydam v — [1977] VR 430 . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50] Obeid v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 321; BC201611600 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] O’Brien v Smith (NSWSC, Yeldham J, 9 May 1986, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] Ohlsen v Jones (1991) 53 A Crim R 136 . . . .[21-s 21.1] Ohlson v Hylton [1975] 1 WLR 724 . .[11-230.10] Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77 .[2-s 213.15], [2-s 215.1] Ollis v R [2011] NSWCCA 155; BC201105175 .[5-s 21A.5] Optical Prescription Spectacle Makers Pty Ltd v Withers (1987) 13 FCR 594; 71 ALR 269; 25 A Crim R 143 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.25] Orban v Bayliss [2004] NSWSC 428; BC200403259 . . . . . .[21-1000.1], [21-1535.5], [21-3170.1] Osland v R (1998) 197 CLR 316; 159 ALR 170; 73 ALJR 173 . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15], [8-s 23.3] O’Sullivan v Brady [1954] SASR 140 . .[11-125.15] — v Tregaskis [1948] SASR 12 . . . .[8-s 527C.10] O’Toole v Samuels (1972) 3 SASR 30 .[8-s 125.15] Ousley v R (1997) 192 CLR 69; 148 ALR 510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.50] Ower, Appeal of (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 51; 62 WN (NSW) 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 11.1] Pallante v Stadiums Pty Ltd (No 1) [1976] 3 VR 331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1; 151 ALR 16 . .[2-s 161.10] Palos Verdes Estates Pty Ltd v Carbon (1991) 6 WAR 223; 72 LGRA 414 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Panchal v R; R v Panchal [2014] NSWCCA 275; BC201409995 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 306P.5] Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85; BC201603486 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] Papakosmas v — (1999) 196 CLR 297; 164 ALR 548 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.10] Parente v — [2017] NSWCCA 284; BC201710271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] Parhizkar v — [2014] NSWCCA 240; BC201409191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93B.5] Parissienne Basket Shoes v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369; [1938] ALR 119 . . . . . . . .[2-s 179.1] Park v R [2019] NSWCCA 105; BC201904666 .[8-s 19A.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxvi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 18 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:5 bwpageid:: 36:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v — [2010] NSWCCA 151; BC201005731 .[8-s 30.1] Parker v Churchill (1986) 9 FCR 334; 65 ALR 107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.25] — v — (1985) 9 FCR 316; 63 ALR 326 . . . .[21-s 49.5] — v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 282; 65 A Crim R 209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-510] — v R (1964) 111 CLR 665; [1964] AC 1369; [1964] ALR 1153 . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30], [8-s 23.3] — v — (1963) 111 CLR 610; [1963] ALR 524; (1963) 37 ALJR 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v Todhunter (1987) 26 A Crim R 169 . . . .[8-s 527C.10] Parks v Bullock [1982] VR 258 . . . . .[10-s 12.1] Parmeter v Proctor (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 48 . .[2-s 16.15], [2-s 16.35] Parsons v R (1999) 195 CLR 619; 160 ALR 531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.10] Pascoe v Nominal Defendant (Qld) (No 2) [1964] Qd R 373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.25] Patten v JP, Redfern Court (1986) 22 A Crim R 94 . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.10], [21-s 48.35] Patterson v Alsleben (NSWSC, Newman J, 5 June 1990, unreported) . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.25] Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619; 17 ALR 566 .[2-s 31.1], [2-s 161.15] Pearce v — (1998) 194 CLR 610; 156 ALR 684; 72 ALJR 1416 . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 156.1], [5-s 53A.5], [5-s 55.1], [8-s 113.15] Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435; 162 ALR 336 . . . . . . . .[1-020] Pemble v R (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] ALR 762 . . . .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.30], [8-s 18.5], [8-s 18.55], [8-s 58.5] Pengilley v — [2006] NSWCCA 163; BC200603582 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.5] Penza and Di Maria v — [2013] NSWCCA 21; BC201300634 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.20] Pereira v DPP (1988) 82 ALR 217; 35 A Crim R 382; (1989) 63 ALJR 1; (1988) 35 A Crim R 382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.15] Perry v R (1990) 49 A Crim R 243 . .[8-s 23A.10] Peters v Asplund [2008] NSWSC 1061; BC200808827 . .[2-s 222.1], [2-s 222.5], [2-s 229.5] Petroulias v R [2010] NSWCCA 95; BC201002944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] — v — (2007) 176 A Crim R 302 . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Pfeiffer v — [2009] NSWCCA 145; BC200904660 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Pfitzner v — [2010] NSWCCA 314; BC201010468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] PG v — [2017] NSWCCA 179; BC201705719 .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 53A.5] PGM (No 2) v — [2012] NSWCCA 261; BC201210735 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 306D.5]

PH v — [2009] NSWCCA 161; BC200905526 .[8-s 66A.40] Phillips v Cassar [1979] 2 NSWLR 340 . . . . .[8-s 417A.1] Piddington v Bates [1960] 3 All ER 660; [1961] 1 WLR 162 . . . . .[8-s 546C.5], [8-s 546C.15] Pinkstone v R (2004) 219 CLR 444; 206 ALR 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] Pioch v Lauder (1976) 13 ALR 266; 27 FLR 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-205] Pirani v Hardy (NSWSC, Smart J, 9 September 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 99.5] Pittman v Di Francesco (1985) 4 NSWLR 133 .[8-s 527C.10], [8-s 547D.1] Platt v Sloman [1946] AR (NSW) 324 . .[2-s 16.35] Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635; 98 ALR 353 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 10.1], [21-s 99.25] Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234; [1964] Qd R 170; [1964] ALR 267 . . .[2-s 161.15], [8-s 18.65] Plunkett v Kroemer [1934] SASR 124 . . . . . .[8-s 546C.10] PM v R (2007) 232 CLR 370; 240 ALR 1 . . .[2-s 8.10] Poidevin v Semaan [2013] NSWCA 334; BC201313632 . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 201.1] Police v Bugmy [2011] NSWLC 28 . .[2-s 314.10] — v Drummond [1973] 2 NZLR 263 . . .[11-135.5] — v Greaves [1964] NZLR 295 . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Polley v Johnson [2015] NSWCA 256; BC201508154 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.20] Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558; 108 ALR 1; 62 A Crim R 190 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] Popa v — (1991) 53 A Crim R 102 . . .[10-s 25.1], [10-s 29.20] Porter v Fitzpatrick (1987) 7 Petty Sessions Review 3485 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 12.1] — v Martin [1910] VLR 38; (1909) 16 ALR 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.15] Potier v Huber (2004) 148 A Crim R 399 . . . .[2-s 49.1], [2-s 174.1] — v R [2014] NSWCCA 177; BC201407056 . .[9-s 22.5], [9-s 74.5] Pounder v Police [1971] NZLR 1080 . .[8-s 58.55] Powch v R (1987) 163 CLR 496; 75 ALR 13 . .[8-s 310D.10] Power v R; sub nom Lyons v R (1974) 131 CLR 623; 3 ALR 553; 3 ALR 553 . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] PPC v Stylianou [2018] NSWCCA 300; BC201812422 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 299B.5] — v Williams [2013] NSWCCA 286; BC201319110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 298.5] Premier Travel Pty Ltd v Satellite Centres of Australia Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 864; BC200406096 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 228.10] Presidential Security Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Brilley (2008) 67 ACSR 692 . . . . .[5-s 16.1] Price v Ferris (1994) 34 NSWLR 704; 74 A Crim R

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxvii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 19 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:7 bwpageid:: 37:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-275] — v Humphries [1958] 2 QB 353; [1958] 2 All ER 725 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of NSW v Tastan (1994) 75 A Crim R 498 . .[2-s 222.30] Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co Ltd v Packer [1955] AR (NSW) 1002 . . .[2-s 16.35] Public Guardian v Guardianship Board (1997) 42 NSWLR 201 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 132.10] Pulitano v R [2010] NSWCCA 45; BC201001318 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1] Purdon v Dittmar [1972] 1 NSWLR 94 . . . . .[8-s 527C.15] Pureau v R (1990) 19 NSWLR 372; 47 A Crim R 230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 162.1] Quayle v — [2010] NSWCCA 16; BC201000467 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Question of Law Reserved (No 3 of 1998) (1998) 71 SASR 223; 101 A Crim R 395 . . .[21-s 21.1] Question of Law Reserved (No 4 of 1997) (1998) 71 SASR 228; 101 A Crim R 561 . . .[10-s 6.15] Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 3 of 1995) (1996) 88 A Crim R 1 . . . . . .[7-105] Quinlan v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 106 .[2-s 161.62] R (Cth) v Baladjam (No 21) [2008] NSWSC 1446; BC200813556 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 1.15] — v Petroulias (No 1) (2006) 217 FLR 242; 177 A Crim R 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.25] — v Petroulias (No 11) [2007] NSWSC 533; BC200711112 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 40.1] — v Petroulias (No 22) (2007) 213 FLR 293; 176 A Crim R 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.20] — v Petroulias (No 34) [2007] NSWSC 1462; BC200711474 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.5] R v — (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1255 . . .[21-s 14.1] — v A [2003] NSWCCA 157; BC200303127 . .[8-s 91D.20] — v A2; R v Magennis; R v Vaziri (No 23) [2016] NSWSC 282; BC201601706 . . . .[8-s 45.10] — v A2; R v Magennis; R v Vaziri (No 24) [2016] NSWSC 737; BC201604468 . . . .[8-s 45.10] — v AA [2017] NSWCCA 84; BC201703070 .[5-s 23.1] — v AB (2011) 59 MVR 356 . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 25F.5], [8-s 52A.45] — v Abboud [2005] NSWCCA 251; BC200505225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61.7] — v Abbrederis (1981) 36 ALR 109; [1981] 1 NSWLR 530 . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [8-s 527C.10] — v Abdullah (2001) 127 A Crim R 46 . . . . .[2-s 161.35] — v Achurch [2011] NSWCCA 186; BC201106195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v ACK (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Studdert and Dowd JJ, 60601/1994, 22 April 1996, BC9601665) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15]

— v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510 .[2-s 161.62] — v — (1999) 47 NSWLR 267 . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Addison (1993) 70 A Crim R 213 .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 3.45], [10-s 3.75] — v Adler (NSWCCA, 11 June 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171; [1994] 3 All ER 79; [1994] 3 WLR 288; (1994) 99 Cr App Rep 362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50] — v AEM (Snr) [2002] NSWCCA 58; BC200200785 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Agic (NSWCCA, 18 May 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 29.10] — v AGR (NSWCCA, Mason P, Grove and James JJ, 24 July 1998, BC9803670) . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Ahmed [2001] NSWCCA 450; BC200107455 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 197.5] — v Ainsworth (1994) 76 A Crim R 127 . . . .[8-s 19A.1] — v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 . .[8-s 66A.40] — v Al Khair (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Priestley JA, Wood J, 20 June 1994, BC9402671) . . .[10-s 25.35], [10-s 25.45] — v Aldridge (1993) 67 A Crim R 371 . .[2-s 21.1] — v — (1990) 20 NSWLR 737; 51 A Crim R 281 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-495], [7-575] — v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141 . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Alexandridis [2014] NSWSC 662; BC201403896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 19.10] — v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286 . . .[2-s 40.1], [2-s 190.1] — v Ali (1981) 6 A Crim R 161 .[2-s 161.25], [2-s 161.30] — v Allan (1841) 174 ER 513; Car M 295 . . .[8-s 310C.1] — v Allen (1984) 16 A Crim R 441 . .[2-s 161.55] — v Allison (2003) 138 A Crim R 378 .[2-s 207.1] — v Ambrosi (2004) 144 A Crim R 67 . . .[7-485] — v AN (2000) 117 A Crim R 176 . . .[2-s 161.45] — v Anastasiou (aka Peters) (1991) 21 NSWLR 394; 52 A Crim R 7 . . . . . . . . .[7-405], [7-475] — v Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116 . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v — (1983) Petty SR 2897 . .[10-s 10.25], [10-s 10.40] — v Andrews [1973] 1 QB 422 . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Annecchini (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Allen and James JJ, 24 April 1996, BC9601668) . .[2-cl 21.20] — v Antill and Brown (1863) 2 SCR (NSW) 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Antonelli (1905) 70 JP 4 . . . . . .[8-s 26.20] — v Appelby (1940) 28 Cr App R 1 . . .[8-s 58.45] — v ARD [2000] NSWCCA 443; BC200006761 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45], [8-s 319.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxviii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 20 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:8 bwpageid:: 38:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v Asim (1997) 92 A Crim R 97 . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Asquith (1994) 72 A Crim R 250 .[2-s 161.35] — v Assaad [2009] NSWCCA 182; BC200906528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v Assim [1966] 2 QB 249; [1966] 2 All ER 881 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Atkinson (1970) 55 Cr App R 1 .[8-s 52A.20] — v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475; BC200007412 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] — v Attard [1970] 1 NSWR 750 . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Priestley JA and Campbell J, 20 April 1993, BC9301923) .[8-s 61J.1], [8-s 98.5] — v Avery [1965] NSWR 1419 . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Aziz [1982] 2 NSWLR 322 . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v B (1993) 68 A Crim R 547 . . . . .[8-s 41.15] — v — (1990) 12 MVR 540 . . . .[8-s 52A.5], [8-s 52A.10] — v — (NSWCCA, 7 December 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v BA [2014] NSWCCA 148; BC201405995 .[5-s 44.20] — v Baartman (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Powell JA, Smart J, 60499/94, 6 October 1994, BC9405200) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v Bacon [1973] 1 NSWLR 87 . . . .[1-225], [2-s 14.1], [2-s 161.12] — v — [1977] 2 NSWLR 507 . . . . .[11-125.25], [11-140.5] — v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; BC201607352 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35], [2-s 161.62] — v Bahsa (2003) 138 A Crim R 245 . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Bailey [1924] QWN 38 . . . . . .[8-s 117.30] — v — (1907) 24 WN (NSW) 23 . . .[8-s 126.10] — v Baird (1985) 3 NSWLR 331 . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.15], [10-s 12.1] — v Baker (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Smart J, Studdert J, 23 May 1994, BC9402549) . . .[8-s 19A.1] — v Bakewell (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, McInerney and Studdert JJ, 27 June 1996, unreported, BC9602796) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 28.1] — v Baleisuva [2004] NSWCCA 344; BC200406822 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10], [5-s 23.1] — v Banner [1970] VR 240 . . . . . .[8-s 310D.10] — v Barakat [2004] NSWCCA 201; BC200403884 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Barca (NSWCCA, 17 August 1978, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 40.1] — v Barron [1914] 2 KB 570 . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] — v Bartalesi (1997) 41 NSWLR 641; 93 A Crim R 274 . . . . . . . .[1-120], [2-s 258.1], [7-010] — v Barton [2004] NSWCCA 229; BC200404319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v — (2001) 121 A Crim R 185 . . . . .[5-s 33.5] — v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337 . .[1-200], [2-s 8.10], [7-220], [7-225], [7-485]

— v Bateman (1925) 94 LJKB 791; 133 LT 730; 41 TLR 557; 19 Cr App Rep 8 . .[8-s 18.50], [8-s 54.5] — v Batiste (1994) 35 NSWLR 437; 77 A Crim R 266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 36.1] — v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152 .[5-s 33.1], [5-s 55.1] — v Bazley (1989) 9 Petty SR 4136 . .[10-s 10.25] — v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 . . . .[8-s 61I.10] — v — (2001) 122 A Crim R 28 . . . . .[10-s 6.10] — v Beavan (1952) 69 WN (NSW) 140 .[2-s 21.15] — v Beckett (2015) 325 ALR 385; 90 ALJR 1 .[8-s 312.5], [8-s 319.5] — v Beckwith [1976] 1 NSWLR 511 . . .[8-s 7.1] — v Beeby (1999) 104 A Crim R 142 .[2-s 153.1], [7-170] — v Beech (1912) 7 Cr App R 197 . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Beissel (1996) 89 A Crim R 210 . . .[5-s 10.1] — v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; BC201202863 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 132.1] — v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466 . . . . . .[5-s 61.1] — v Bellamy (NSWCCA, 15 February 1993, BC9301860) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.10] — v — (1981) 3 A Crim R 432 . . . . .[8-s 188.25] — v Bellino and Conte [1993] 1 Qd R 521; (1992) 59 A Crim R 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Bellman [1989] AC 836; (1989) 88 Cr App R 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.10], [2-s 21.5] — v Bennett [2014] NSWCCA 197; BC201408247 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Bennie [1953] VLR 583 . . . . . .[8-s 125.15] — v Berg (2004) 41 MVR 399 . .[5-s 21A.5], [8-s 52A.45] — v Bergin (NSWCCA, 22 June 1984, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.1] — v Bernhard [1938] 2 KB 264 . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Bernthaler (NSWCCA, Kirby P, Badgery-Parker J, Ireland J, 60394/1993, 17 December 1993, BC9302364) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v Berrigan (NSWCCA, 7 October 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v Beserick (1993) 30 NSWLR 510; 66 A Crim R 419 . . .[2-s 293.1], [8-s 61I.1], [8-s 80AB.1] — v Besim (2004) 148 A Crim R 28 . .[8-s 18.55] — v Beydoun (1990) 22 NSWLR 256; 51 A Crim R 89; (1990) 51 A Crim R 89 . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v Bielaczek (NSWSC, Badgery-Parker J, 19 March 1992, BC9202765) . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21.1] — v Bikic (2000) 112 A Crim R 300 . .[2-s 21.15] — v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321; 11 A Crim R 452 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.1], [7-525] — v Bingapore (1975) 11 SASR 469 . .[8-s 18.15] — v Bircham [1972] Crim LR 430 . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Black [1963] WLR 1311 . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Spigelman CJ, Sully and Ireland

References are to paragraph numbers

xxxix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 21 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:9 bwpageid:: 39:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Brenner [1990] Tas R 131 . . . . .[8-s 117.55] — v Brett [2004] NSWCCA 372; BC200407211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Briggs (1987) 24 A Crim R 98 . . . . .[7-525] — v Broadbent [1964] VR 733 . . . . . .[2-s 153.1] — v — [1967] 2 QB 857; [1967] 2 All ER 671; [1967] 3 WLR 209; (1967) 51 Cr App Rep 351 . .[2-s 153.1] — v Broadfoot [1976] 3 All ER 753 . .[8-s 91A.5] — v Brown (1989) 17 NSWLR 472; 44 A Crim R 385 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.10], [2-s 153.1], [7-001] — v — (1987) 78 ALR 368; 32 A Crim R 162 .[2-s 161.30] — v — (1982) 79 FLR 148 . . . . . . .[8-s 24.15] — v — (1883) 10 QBD 381 . . . . . . . .[8-s 30.1] — v — [1994] 1 AC 212 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1993] 2 WLR 556 . . . . . . . .[8-s 59.5] — v — [2009] NSWCCA 6; BC200901586 . . .[5-s 11.1] — v — [2012] NSWCCA 199; BC2012073329 .[5-s 53.5], [5-s 53A.5] — v Browne (1987) 30 A Crim R 278 .[7-495], [7575], [8-s 351.15] — v Brownlowe (1986) 7 NSWLR 461; 24 A Crim R 377 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v Buchanan [1966] VR 9 . . . . . .[8-s 52A.35] — v Bucic (2016) 263 A Crim R 515 . .[10-s 3.85], [10-s 6.20], [10-s 24.5] — v Buckett (1995) 132 ALR 669; 79 A Crim R 303 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35], [8-s 351.15] — v Buckley [1979] Crim LR 665 . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Burgess (1862) L C 258 . . . . . . .[8-s 30.1] — v — (2005) 152 A Crim R 100 . . . .[8-s 418.1] — v Burke [1993] 1 Qd R 166; (1991) 56 A Crim R 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 36.1], [7-405] — v — [2002] NSWCCA 353; BC200205003 .[5-s 23.1] — v Burnett (1996) 85 A Crim R 76 . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Burns (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 351; 37 WN (NSW) 77 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.30], [2-s 21.1] — v — (2011) 205 A Crim R 240 . . . . .[8-s 39.7] — v Burton [2008] NSWCCA 128; BC200804752 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [8-s 323.20] — v Busby [2018] NSWCCA 136; BC201805763 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.1], [10-s 25.7] — v Buswell [1972] 1 All ER 75 . . . . . .[8-s 7.1] — v Butcher [1986] VR 43; (1985) 16 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Butler (1991) 24 NSWLR 66; 56 A Crim R 231 . . . . . . .[2-s 8.10], [7-001], [7-010], [7-220] — v Buttle (1960) SR (NSW) 320; (1959) 77 WN (NSW) 154 . . . . .[8-s 117.20], [8-s 126.10] — v Buttsworth [1983] 1 NSWLR 658 . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v BWM (1997) 91 A Crim R 260 . . .[2-s 153.1] — v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241; 129 A Crim R 153

JJ, 23 July 1998, BC9805277) . .[8-s 52A.45] — v — (1983) 35 SASR 261; (1984) ACLD 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.25] — v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Grove and Ireland JJ, 12 December 1995, BC9501665) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Blackwell (1996) 186 LSJS 336; 87 A Crim R 289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.50] — v Blair (1985) 1 NSWLR 584 . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 193.5] — v — (2005) 152 A Crim R 462 . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Blakeney (NSWCCA, Finlay, Newman JJ and Barr AJ, 15 December 1994, BC9403425) .[8-s 39.20] — v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Blinkhorn (1994) 32 NSWLR 706 . . . . .[8-s 310G.5] — v Bloxham (1943) 29 Cr App R 37 .[8-s 117.20] — v Boatswain (NSWCCA, 15 December 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Boden (1844) 1 Car & Kir 395 . .[8-s 117.35] — v Boehner (NSWCCA, 17 August 1978, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 10.35] — v Bogacki [1973] 1 QB 832 . . . . .[8-s 154A.5] — v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510 . . .[5-s 28.5] — v Bolton (Cooper DCJ, District Court of NSW, 14 May 1981, unreported) . . . . . . . .[8-s 53.5] — v Bond (NSWCCA, Grove, James JJ and Hamilton JA, 60001/1996, 20 August 1996, BC9603728) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v Bonora (1994) 35 NSWLR 74 . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Booth [2014] NSWCCA 156; BC201406807 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v — [1982] 2 NSWLR 847; (1982) 8 A Crim R 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Borkowski (2009) 52 MVR 528; 195 A Crim R 1 . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [8-s 18.55], [8-s 24.30] — v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386; 30 ALR 185 .[2-s 17.5] — v Bouch (1983) 76 Cr App R 11 . . . .[8-s 28.1] — v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289; BC200506979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Bourchas (2002) 133 A Crim R 413 .[5-s 23.1] — v Bourke (1987) 28 A Crim R 216 . . . .[7-640] — v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App Rep 125 .[8-s 79.1], [8-s 351B.5] — v Bowden (1981) 7 A Crim R 378 . .[8-s 110.5] — v Boyle [1954] 2 QB 292 . . . . . . . . .[7-150] — v Bradley (NSWCCA, Kirby ACJ, Badgery-Parker J, Loveday AJ, 060686/1992, 26 October 1993, BC9302270) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v Brady (1980) 2 A Crim R 42; Petty SR 2199; Petty Sessions Review 2199 . . . .[10-s 12.1] — v Brandt (2004) 42 MVR 262 . . . . .[5-s 33.1] — v Breen (1990) 99 FLR 474; 47 A Crim R 298 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-105]

References are to paragraph numbers

xl

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 22 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:11 bwpageid:: 40:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v Challita (1988) 37 A Crim R 175 . .[2-cl 21.5], [10-s 26.1] — v Chan (1992) 28 NSWLR 421 . .[8-s 527C.10], [8-s 527C.25] — v — [1999] NSWCCA 103; BC9901998 . .[10-s 25.25] — v Chandler [1913] 1 KB 125 . . . . .[8-s 112.5] — v Chan-Fook [1994] 1 WLR 691 . . . .[8-s 59.5] — v Chant [2009] NSWSC 290; BC200902937 .[5-s 10A.1] — v Charles [1977] AC 177 . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v Charlton [1972] VR 758 . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Chatwood [1980] Crim LR 46 . . .[10-s 12.1] — v Chatzidimitriou (2000) 1 VR 493; 112 A Crim R 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v Checconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160 .[2-s 32.5], [2-s 161.25], [2-s 161.40], [2-cl 21.5] — v Cheikh; R v Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448; BC200408756 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1; (1995) 19 Crim LJ 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671; 59 ALR 1 .[7-495] — v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218 . . .[2-s 207.1], [7-170] — v Chisari [2006] NSWCCA 19; BC200601106 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Chong [2003] NSWCCA 274; BC200305650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.5] — v Chow (1987) 11 NSWLR 561 . . .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 26.1] — v Christoff (2003) 38 MVR 218; 140 A Crim R 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15], [8-s 52A.15] — v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.55] — v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; 46 MVR 461 . .[2-s 161.62] — v Cicekdag (2004) 150 A Crim R 299 .[5-s 55.1] — v Cincotta NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, Grove and Allen JJ, 60472/1995, 1 November 1995, BC9501631) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v City of London Coroner; Ex parte Barber [1975] 1 WLR 1310 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 31C.5] — v Clarence [1886–90] All ER Rep 133; (1888) 53 JP 149; 58 LJMC 10; 22 QBD 23 . .[8-s 4.1] — v — (1888) 22 QBD 23 . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Clark (NSWCCA unreported, 15 March 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Clarke (1993) 71 A Crim R 58 .[2-s 21.1], [2-s 161.55] — v — (1995) 78 A Crim R 226 .[2-s 161.15], [8-s 121.5] — v — (1997) 97 A Crim R 414 . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v — [2013] NSWCCA 260; BC201314803 .[5-s 53A.5] — v Clarkson [1987] VR 962; (1987) 25 A Crim R 277 . . .[7-105], [8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 . . . . . .[8-s 23A.1] v Caine (1990) 48 A Crim R 464 . . . . .[7-640] v Cakovski (2004) 149 A Crim R 21 .[8-s 58.35] v Calderoni [2000] NSWCCA 511; BC200007790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300; (1993) 70 A Crim R 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Cameron [1983] 2 NSWLR 66; (1983) 8 A Crim R 466 .[2-s 161.20], [2-s 162.1], [8-s 61I.85], [8-s 80AB.1] — v — (2005) 157 A Crim R 70 . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v — (1924) 24 SR (NSW) 302 . . .[8-s 117.10] — v — (2002) 209 CLR 339; 187 ALR 65 . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Campbell [2005] NSWCCA 132; BC200502032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.62] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 314; BC200406256 .[8-s 121.5] — v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535 .[5-s 22.5] — v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292; 50 A Crim R 163 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 29.5] — v Carlairs (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 515 . . .[7-525] — v Carr (NSWCCA, Lee CJ at CL, Allen and Badgery-Parker JJ, 17 October 1990, BC9001863) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1972] 1 NSWLR 608 . . . . .[21-s 133.3] — v Carr-Briant [1943] KB 607 . . . . .[11-125.25] — v Carrol [1975] 2 NZLR 474 . . . . .[11-230.10] — v Carroll (2010) 267 ALR 57 . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Carruthers (2008) 50 MVR 29; 182 A Crim R 481 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Carter (1978) 4 Petty SR 1859 .[8-s 527C.10] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 243; BC200305119 .[5-s 44.15] — v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243 .[5-s 23.1] — v Carusi (1989) 17 NSWLR 516 . . .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 26.1] — v Cassell (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Sully and Hulme JJ, 60162/96, 24 July 1996, unreported; BC9607104) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 11.1] — v Catalano (1992) 107 FLR 31; 61 A Crim R 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260; [1976] 1 WLR 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.50] — v Catt (1993) 68 A Crim R 189 . . . . . .[7-495] — v CDH [2002] NSWCCA 103; BC200201373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Ceissman (2001) 160 FLR 252; 119 A Crim R 535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.20] — v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153; 60 A Crim R 305 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 32.5], [2-s 161.40] — v — (2002) 187 ALR 436; 76 ALJR 628 . .[2-s 161.1] — v — [2000] NSWCCA 320; BC200005097 .[8-s 18.55] — — — —

References are to paragraph numbers

xli

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 23 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:12 bwpageid:: 41:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Clayton (1997) 42 NSWLR 268 . . .[5-s 58.1] — v Clear [1968] 2 WLR 122 . . . . . .[8-s 99.10] — v Clogher [1999] NSWCCA 397; BC9908862 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 192G.20] — v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396; 64 A Crim R 451 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312 . . .[2-s 161.55] — v Cogan [1976] QB 217; [1975] 2 All ER 1059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 351B.5] — v Cole [1965] 2 QB 388; [1965] 2 All ER 29; [1965] 3 WLR 263; (1965) 49 Cr App Rep 199 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 153.1] — v Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467; 47 A Crim R 306 . . . . .[2-s 161.63], [8-s 4A.5], [8-s 18.1] — v — (1991) 56 A Crim R 369 . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Coles [1984] 1 NSWLR 726; (1984) 9 A Crim R 419 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Collet NSWCCA, 7 June 1979, unreported, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.1] — v Colling (1847) 2 Cox CC 184 . . . . .[7-105] — v Collins [1973] QB 100; [1972] 2 All ER 1105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 111.5], [8-s 112.5] — v Comptroller of Customs [1899] 1 QB 909 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-105] — v Condon (1995) 83 A Crim R 335 .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.25] — v Coney (1882) 8 QBD 534 . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92; (1995) 19 Crim LJ 44 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.20], [8-s 418.1] — v Cook (NSWCCA, Clarke JA, Campbell and Allen JJ, 60572/1989, 9 May 1990, BC9002472) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.1] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 52; BC200401046 . .[2-s 161.62] — v Coomer (1989) 40 A Crim R 417 . .[8-s 18.55] — v Cooper (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Ireland and Bruce JJ, 60956/97, 24 February 1998, BC9800322) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v — (1979) 69 Cr App Rep 229 . . .[2-s 150.1] — v Cosgrove (1988) 34 A Crim R 299 . . . . .[2-s 161.25] — v Costi (1987) 48 SASR 269 . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Cotterill (NSWCCA, 7 June 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.5] — v Coulter [1914] 31 WN (NSW) 21 . .[2-s 31.1] — v Cox [1960] VR 665 . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 40.1] — v — (1818) R R 362 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33.5] — v CPK (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Clarke and Hulme JJA, 60330/1994, 21 June 1995, BC9504846) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Cramp (1880) 5 QBD 307 . . . . . .[8-s 39.5] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 264; BC200404883 .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 44.15] — v Crawford [1989] 2 Qd R 443; (1988) 36 A Crim R 182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 17.1] — v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178 . . . . .[2-s

161.20], [2-s 162.1], [8-s 61I.65] — v Croft (1933) 50 WN(NSW) 56 . . . . .[7-640] — v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297; BC9906339 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Cross (1995) 84 A Crim R 242 . .[8-s 188.25] — v Crotty (1993) 1 NSWCR 71 . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v Crowe [2016] NSWCCA 39; BC201601466 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 3A.1] — v Crowley (1963) 82 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.5] — v Cruse (1838) 8 C P 541 . . . . . . .[8-s 27.15] — v CWW (1993) 32 NSWLR 348; 70 A Crim R 517 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 23.30], [10-s 25.1] — v D [1984] 3 NSWLR 29 . . . . .[8-s 54.5], [8-s 212.10] — v Dalby [1982] 1 WLR 425; 1 All ER 916 .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 13.10] — v Dale (1852) 6 Cox CC 14 . . . . . .[8-s 27.1] — v Daley (1879) 12 SCR (NSW) 151 .[8-s 117.15] — v Damic [1982] 2 NSWLR 750; (1982) 6 A Crim R 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Dang [1999] NSWCCA 42; BC9901567 . .[8-s 19A.1], [8-s 24.30], [8-s 52A.45] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 430; BC200510784 .[10-s 25.25] — v Dann [2000] NSWCCA 185; BC200002589 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.48] — v Darby (1982) 148 CLR 668; 40 ALR 594; 56 ALJR 688 . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15], [2-cl 21.5] — v Darling (1884) 5 LR (NSW) 405; 1 WN 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 56.10] — v — [1974] 2 NSWLR 542 . . . . . .[11-140.5] — v D’Arrigo [1994] 1 Qd R 603; (1991) 58 A Crim R 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v Darwich [2018] NSWCCA 46; BC201801979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91D.20] — v Dasilva [2015] NSWSC 1909; BC201513520 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 30.1] — v Davenport [1954] 1 All ER 602 . .[8-s 157.10] — v David and Gugea (NSWCCA, 10 October 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.45] — v Davidson [1969] VR 667 . . . . . . .[8-s 84.5] — v Davies (1993) 19 MVR 481 . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v — [1970] VR 27 . . .[8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.20] — v — (1973) 7 SASR 375 . . . . . . .[8-s 327.10] — v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15; BC9900945 . .[2-s 161.1] — v — (1998) 100 A Crim R 573 . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v — [1968] 1 QB 72 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 31C.5] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 298; BC200406330 .[8-s 61I.48] — v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App Rep 150 . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v DBG (2002) 133 A Crim R 227 .[2-s 306X.1], [2-s 306ZI.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

xlii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 24 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:13 bwpageid:: 42:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v De Cressac (1985) 1 NSWLR 381 . . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183; BC201506248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91H.1] — v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; 35 ALR 265 . . . . .[2-s 153.1], [8-s 91H.1], [10-s 25A.5] — v De Souza (1997) 41 NSWLR 656; 95 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.1] — v Dean (1932) NZLR 753 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v — [2013] NSWSC 661; BC201302789 . .[2-s 132.1] — v Deeble (CCA(NSW), 19 September 1991, BC9101554) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 47.1] — v Dellapatrona (1993) 31 NSWLR 123 . . . .[2-s 161.40], [2-s 161.62] — v Delon (1992) 29 NSWLR 29 . . . . . .[7-505] — v Demiroz [2003] NSWCCA 146; BC200303668 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v Deng (1996) 91 A Crim R 80 . . . .[10-s 6.15] — v Denning (NSWCCA, Carruthers, Smart and Grove JJ, 60807/1991, 15 May 1992, BC9203052) . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v Derbas (1993) 66 A Crim R 327 . .[10-s 25.5] — v Devenish [1969] VR 737 . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v DH (NSWCCA, Newman, James and Hidden JJ, 14 July 1997, BC9703242) . . . .[8-s 61H.10] — v Dhanhoa [2000] NSWCCA 257; BC200004701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Dhillon (CCA(NSW), 26 April 1989, BC8902251) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61.25] — v Diamond (1920) 84 JP 211 . . . . .[8-s 26.10] — v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64 . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 7.1], [10-s 10.10], [10-s 10.25] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 117; BC200302577 .[5-s 22.5] — v — [2002] NSWSC 934; BC200205992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-170] — v Dickinson [2005] NSWCCA 284; BC200506727 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v Dileski (2002) 132 A Crim R 408 .[8-s 349.5] — v Dillon (1878) 1 SCR (NS) (NSW) 159 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v — [1982] VR 434 . . . . . . . .[8-s 249B.10] — v — [1983] 2 Qd R 627 . . . . . . . .[10-s 12.1] — v Dinh [2010] NSWCCA 74; BC201002663 .[8-s 47.15] — v Dirani (No 19) [2018] NSWSC 1135; BC201813265 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.5] — v Dirani (No 33) [2019] NSWSC 288; BC201902338 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 314.15] — v Dirani (No 7) [2018] NSWSC 945; BC201813258 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 34.1] — v Dittmar [1973] 1 NSWLR 722 . .[8-s 527C.1], [8-s 527C.25] — v DMC (2002) 137 A Crim R 246 . . .[8-s 86.1] — v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 . .[8-s 52A.45]

— v Dolan [1969] 1 WLR 1479 . . . . .[11-125.25] — v Donohoe (NSWCCA, 2 August 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.30] — v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 . . . . . .[8-s 59.5] — v Dookheea (2017) 347 ALR 529; 91 ALJR 960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456; BC200006608 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.20] — v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158 . . .[2-s 16.15], [2-s 21.1] — v Downs (1985) 3 NSWLR 312 .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.25] — v Doyle [2006] NSWCCA 118; BC200602231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Drinkwater (1981) 27 SASR 396 .[8-s 117.15] — v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371 .[8-s 310B.5] — v Dugan [1984] 2 NSWLR 554 . . .[8-s 114.20] — v Dunbar (1982) 1 All ER 188 . . . .[10-s 11.5] — v Dungay (2001) 126 A Crim R 216 . . . .[21-s 99.15] — v Dunks [1982] 2 NSWLR 747; (1982) 8 A Crim R 267 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.30] — v Dunn (NSWCCA, Carruthers J, 15 April 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61H.5] — v — [1973] 2 NZLR 481 . . . . . . .[8-s 81C.5] — v Dunne (NSWCCA, 1 March 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.5] — v — (NSWCCA, 26 March 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Duru [1973] 3 All ER 715 . . . . .[8-s 117.30] — v Dutton [2005] NSWCCA 248; BC200505157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66; BC201203094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Dwyer [1999] NSWCCA 47; BC9901059 .[8-s 61I.10] — v Dykyj (1993) 29 NSWLR 273 . . .[8-s 188.15] — v Dziduch (1990) 47 A Crim R 378 .[8-s 58.20] — v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450 . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v Eade (2002) 131 A Crim R 390 . . .[10-s 27.5] — v Easom [1971] 2 QB 315 . . . . . .[8-s 117.30] — v — (1981) 28 SASR 134; 4 A Crim R 171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Economou (1989) 51 SASR 421; 44 A Crim R 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-105] — v Edelsten (1990) 21 NSWLR 542; 51 A Crim R 397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354; (1997) 94 A Crim R 204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v — [2015] NSWCCA 24; BC201513831 . .[2-s 293.1] — v — [2008] SASC 303; BC200809979 . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38; BC201201670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.5] — v El Azzi [2001] NSWCCA 397; BC200106121

References are to paragraph numbers

xliii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 25 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:15 bwpageid:: 43:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.10] — v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162; BC200403011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 23.1] — v El Helou [2010] NSWCCA 111; BC201003286 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.20] — v El Mir (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 191 . . . . .[2-s 161.10], [7-640] — v El-Andouri [2004] NSWCCA 178; BC200403645 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v ELD [2004] NSWCCA 219; BC200404881 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.48] — v El-Hayek (2004) 144 A Crim R 90 .[5-s 44.15] — v Ellames [1974] 3 All ER 130; 1 WLR 1391 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449 . . .[8-s 97.20] — v — (NSWCCA, 27 February 1987, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.30] — v — (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v — (1973) 57 Cr App R 571 . . . . . . .[7-150] — v El-Zeyat [2002] NSWCCA 138 . .[8-s 315.15] — v Emery (1975) 11 SASR 169 . . . .[8-s 94.10] — v English (1989) 17 NSWLR 149 . .[8-s 527C.5] — v — [2000] NSWCCA 245; BC200003829 .[5-s 47.1] — v Errington (1999) 29 MVR 344 . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442; 105 A Crim R 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] — v Essex Justices, Ex parte Final [1963] 2 QB 816; [1962] 3 All ER 924 . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.10] — v Evans [1962] SASR 303 . . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v — [1842] Carrington and Marshman 298 .[8-s 56.10] — v Evans and Gardiner (No 2) [1976] VR 523 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Evenett; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1987] 2 Qd R 753; 24 A Crim R 330 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.20] — v Everingham (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 122 . .[8-s 58.5] — v Eyles (1997) 3 NSWCR 43 . . . . .[11-135.10] — v F (1996) 90 A Crim R 356 . .[2-s 16.25], [10-s 25.1] — v — (1995) 83 A Crim R 502 . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v — (1996) 40 NSWLR 245; 89 A Crim R 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.5] — v — [1957] SR(NSW) 543; 74 WN 211 . . .[8-s 52A.25] — v Fabian (1992) 64 A Crim R 365 . .[10-s 25.25] — v Falconer-Atlee (1974) 58 Cr App R 348 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525] — v Falzon (2018) 357 ALR 394 . . . .[10-s 25.30] — v Falzon (No 2) [1993] 1 Qd R 618 . .[2-s 32.5] — v Fan (1989) 98 FLR 119 . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Farlow [1980] 2 NSWLR 166; (1979) 2 A Crim R 266 . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1], [8-s 310D.35] — v Farrar (1983) 78 FLR 10 . . . . . . .[8-s 97.5] — v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320; BC9906690

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v Fazio (1997) 69 SASR 54; 93 A Crim R 522 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.50] — v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392 .[5-s 22.5] — v Felton (2002) 135 A Crim R 328 . .[5-s 33.1] — v Fennell [1971] 1 QB 428; [1970] 3 All ER 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.55] — v Fenwick [1954] 71 WN 102 . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Fernando [1999] NSWCCA 66; BC9901709 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 147; BC200402658 .[5-s 23.1] — v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172; BC200403273 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Filimoehala (2003) 138 A Crim R 299 . . .[2-s 153.1], [7-170] — v Filippetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335 . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.25], [10-s 10.40] — v Finlayson (1964) 3 SCR (NSW) 3 .[8-s 117.20] — v Finn (1988) 34 A Crim R 425 . .[2-s 161.55], [7-640] — v Fisher (2002) 54 NSWLR 467 . . .[1-055], [1280], [2-s 6.1], [8-s 61.1] — v — (2003) 56 NSWLR 625; 138 A Crim R 318 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.1], [2-s 19.5] — v Fleming and Robinson (1989) Crim LR 658 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-185.5] — v Flemming [1989] Crim LR 71 . . .[11-230.10] — v Flesch and McKenzie (1986) 7 NSWLR 554 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.10] — v Fong (NSWCCA, 29 November 1996, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1 . . .[2-s 161.5] — v Forgione [1969] SASR 248 . . . . .[2-cl 21.5] — v Foster (1995) 78 A Crim R 517 . .[8-s 94.10], [8-s 97.5] — v — (2001) 33 MVR 565 . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v — (1992) 25 NSWLR 732 . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Foulstone (NSWCCA, Hunt J, Wood J and Finlay J, 18 July 1990, BC9002230) . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166 . . . . .[2-s 161.15], [2-s 161.25], [2-s 161.35], [2-s 161.60], [2-s 161.62] — v Francis (2004) 145 A CrimR 233 .[2-s 222.25] — v Franklin (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Handley JA and Studdert J, 60197/1989, 17 September 1990, BC9001999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Franks [2005] NSWCCA 196; BC200503392 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Fransisco and Dorain (NSWCCA, 24 August 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965; BC200306355 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 151.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

xliv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 26 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:16 bwpageid:: 44:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Frazer (2002) 128 A Crim R 89 . .[10-s 3.30] Fretwell (1864) L C 443 . . . . . . .[8-s 29.1] Friel (1890) 17 Cox CC 325 . . . .[2-s 193.5] Fuge (2001) 123 A Crim R 310 . .[8-s 94.15], [8-s 117.35] — v Fura [1954] 1 QB 503 . . . . . . .[11-125.25], [11-140.10] — v Fuschello [1940] 2 All ER 489 . .[8-s 188.15] — v Gadd [1911] QWN 31 . . . . . . .[8-s 117.15] — v Gaffney [1971] 1 NSWLR 511 .[8-s 310D.10] — v Galambos (1980) 2 A Crim R 388 . . . . .[2-s 161.30] — v Galea (1989) 46 A Crim R 158 . . .[8-s 112.5] — v Galey [1985] 1 NZLR 230 . . . . .[8-s 97.10] — v Gallagher (1989) 44 A Crim R 256 . . . .[2-cl 21.20] — v — [1986] VR 219; (1985) 16 A Crim R 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 249B.10] — v — (1991) 23 NSWLR 220; 53 A Crim R 248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Galvin (No 2) [1961] VR 740 .[8-s 58.45], [8-s 546C.5] — v Ganderton NSWCCA, 17 September 1998, unreported . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224; BC200304769 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] — v Gardenal-Williams [1989] TasR 62; (1989) 43 A Crim R 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 22A.1] — v Garnet-Thomas [1974] 1 NSWLR 702 . . .[8-s 417A.1] — v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469 . .[5-s 3A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Gawell (2004) 150 A Crim R 376 .[10-s 6.10] — v GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376; 75 A Crim R 319 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v GED (2003) 141 A Crim R 135 . .[2-s 161.40] — v Georgiadis [1984] VR 1030 . . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276; BC200105020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 319.15] — v Gibbons (1862) XII CCC 100 . . .[8-s 327.10] — v Gibson (1989) 42 A Crim R 265 . . .[2-s 21.1] — v — [2002] NSWCCA 401; BC200205919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Gidley [1984] 3 NSWLR 168 . . . . . .[7-405] — v Giffin [1971] Qd R 12 . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Gilbert [1953] SASR 163 . . . . .[8-s 125.15] — v Gilham (2007) 190 A Crim R 303 . .[2-s 19.5] — v Gillan (1991) 100 ALR 66; 54 A Crim R 475 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.1] — v Gillard (1999) 105 A Crim R 479 .[8-s 61I.10] — v Gills [1986] 1 Qd R 459; (1986) 22 A Crim R 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Giorgi (1982) 7 A Crim R 305; [1983] ACLD 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.10] — v GKA (1998) 99 A Crim R 491 . . . . .[7-105] — v GLB [2003] NSWCCA 210; BC200304634 — — — —

v v v v

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v GLC [2000] NSWCCA 99; BC200001596 .[2-s 21.15] — v Glencourse (1995) 78 A Crim R 256 . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; 106 ALR 177; 66 ALJR 344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Glynn (1994) 33 NSWLR 139; 71 A Crim R 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 17.5] — v Goldburg (NSWCCA, 23 February 1993, BC9302038) . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 192.5] — v Goldie; Ex parte Picklum (1937) 59 CLR 254; [1938] ALR 25 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 351B.5] — v Gommeson [2014] NSWCCA 159 . .[5-s 55.1] — v Goodman (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ at CL, Allen and Badgery-Parker JJ, 10 December 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Gorman (2002) 137 A Crim R 326 . .[5-s 55.1] — v Gosling [2002] NSWCCA 351; BC200205009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.10] — v Gover (2000) 118 A Crim R 8 . . .[2-s 289.1] — v GPP (2001) 129 A Crim R 1 . . . . . .[7-640] — v Grace (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 158; 47 WN (NSW) 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.10] — v Grant (2002) 55 NSWLR 80; 131 A Crim R 510 . . . . . . .[8-s 18.5], [8-s 18.30], [8-s 428B.1] — v Grassby (1988) 15 NSWLR 109 . . . .[7-001] — v Gray [2018] NSWCCA 241; BC201810001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 47.1] — v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220; BC200404068 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Greatorex (1994) 74 A Crim R 496 . . . .[2-s 161.1], [10-s 25.1] — v Grech (NSWCCA 11 December 1998, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849; [1973] 1 WLR 1151 . . . . . . . .[2-s 17.1], [2-cl 21.5] — v Greenham [1999] NSWCCA 8; BC9900796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] — v Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442 . . . .[2-s 36.1] — v Gregory (1867) LR 1 CCR 77 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v — [1983] 3 NSWLR 172 . . . .[8-s 310D.15] — v Grooms (NSWCCA, 9 October 1989, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1] — v Grubbe [2005] NSWCCA 140; BC200502037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1] — v Guerin [1967] 1 NSWR 255 . . . .[2-s 161.30] — v Guldur (1986) 8 NSWLR 12; 25 A Crim R 271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v Gulliford (2004) 148 A Crim R 558 . . . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 61I.48], [8-s 112.5] — v GW (2016) 328 ALR 583; 90 ALJR 407 .[2-s 161.40] — v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240; BC201209125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.15] — v H (1980) 3 A Crim R 53 . . . . . . .[5-s 21.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

xlv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 27 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:18 bwpageid:: 45:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Haas (NSWCCA, 30 June 1972, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 23.5] — v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 7 . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372 . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Haley (1959) 76 WN (NSW) 550 . .[8-s 29.1] — v Hall (NSWCCA,Gleeson CJ, Grove and Abadee JJ, 60326/1992, 28 September 1995, BC9501747) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v — (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 307; (1903) 20 WN (NSW) 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 126.10] — v Hallett [1969] SASR 141 . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Hallocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67 . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; 156 A Crim R 150 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.40], [2-s 126.1] — v — [1999] NSWCCA 354; BC9907457 . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179 . .[8-5135.1] — v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575; 10 Petty SR 4551 . . . . .[8-s 4.5], [8-s 33B.3], [8-s 33B.5] — v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 .[5-s 55.1] — v Hampton (1998) 44 NSWLR 729; 101 A Crim R 399 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v Hands (1887) 16 Cox CC 188 . . .[8-s 117.20] — v Hann (1883) SALR 119 . . .[8-s 125.20], [8-s 125.25] — v Hannes (2000) 36 ACSR 72; 158 FLR 359 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] — v Harkins (1958) VR 543; [1958] ALR 461 .[2-s 14.1] — v Harley (1830) 4 C P 369 . . . . . . .[8-s 27.1] — v Harmouche (2005) 158 A Crim R 357 . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Harran [1969] Crim LR 662 . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Harris (1988) 17 NSWLR 158 . . .[8-s 61H.1] — v — [1961] Crim LR 256 . . .[8-s 114.10], [10-s 10.35] — v — (1968) 52 Cr App R 277 . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v — (2001) 125 A Crim R 27 . . . . .[5-s 33.1] — v — (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; 121 A Crim R 342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10], [5-s 61.1] — v Harrison (1995) 79 A Crim R 149 .[2-cl 21.5] — v Hartikainen (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Meagher JA, Newman J, 8 June 1993, BC9301848) .[8-s 61I.65] — v Hartley [1972] 2 QB 1 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Harvey (NSWCCA, 3 October 1985, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Hass (1986) 22 A Crim R 299 . . . . .[7-525] — v Hassan [1971] 1 QB 423 . . . . . .[2-s 150.1] — v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294 . . .[8-s 58.20] — v Hawi (No 18) [2011] NSWSC 1664 . . . .[8-s 93B.30] — v Hay [1968] Qd R 459 . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Hayden (CCA(NSW), 14 July 1993, unreported)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v Haywood (1994) 73 A Crim R 41 .[8-s 61I.45] — v Heinrich (1992) 15 MVR 225; 61 A Crim R 212 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Helmhout (2000) 112 A Crim R 10 . . . .[21-s 112.1] — v Helmling (NSWCCA, 11 November 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.5] — v Hemsley (1988) 36 A Crim R 334 .[8-s 61I.5] — v Hendricks [2011] NSWCCA 203; BC201106989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Hennah (1877) 13 Cox CC 547 . . .[8-s 39.5] — v Hennessy [2001] NSWCCA 36; BC200100544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.5] — v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133 . . .[8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.50] — v Henning (NSWCCA, 11 May 1990, BC9002977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Campbell and Mathews JJ, 11 May 1990, BC9002977) . .[8-s 61I.5] — v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; 106 A Crim R 149 . . .[5-s 37.1], [5-s 42.1], [8-s 97.20], [8-s 98.20] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 90; BC200702210 . .[8-s 98.20] — v — (1992) 28 NSWLR 348 . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Hetherington [2016] NSWCCA 165; BC201607030 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.20] — v Heuston (1996) 90 A Crim R 213 .[2-s 150.1], [2-s 150.5], [7-485] — v — (1995) 81 A Crim R 387 . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234 . .[2-s 161.62] — v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20; BC200901464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 66A.40] — v Hildebrandt (1963) 81 WN (NSW) 143 . .[2-s 193.5] — v Hill [1988] 1 Qd R 654 . . . . . .[2-s 161.25] — v — (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Hill; R v Churchman [1914] 2 KB 386 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.10] — v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; 233 ALR 634 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v Hillsley (2006) 164 A Crim R 252 .[8-s 19A.5] — v Hilton (1987) 7 NSWLR 745 . . . .[9-s 1.10] — v Hinds (1957) 41 Cr App Rep 143 . . . . .[8-s 310D.3], [8-s 310D.25] — v Hinton (1976) Petty SR 1749 . . .[10-s 10.5], [10-s 10.40] — v Hird [2017] NSWSC 1400; BC201708566 .[9-s 74.5] — v Ho (2002) 130 A Crim R 545 . . .[2-s 161.10] — v — (NSWCCA, 11 February 1988, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-cl 21.20] — v — (1989) 39 A Crim R 145 . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20]

References are to paragraph numbers

xlvi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 28 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:19 bwpageid:: 46:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v Hoar (1981) 148 CLR 32; 37 ALR 357 . .[2-cl 21.5], [2-cl 21.20], [5-s 21.1] — v Hodge (1993-4) 1 NSWCR 61 . . .[8-s 97.20] — v Hodges [1957] 41 Cr App R 218 .[8-s 114.10] — v Hoerler (2004) 147 A Crim R 520 .[8-s 19A.1], [8-s 24.30] — v Hofschuster (1993) 70 A Crim R 260 .[7-105] — v Holden [1974] 2 NSWLR 548 . . .[2-s 161.30] — v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; (1983) 13 A Crim R 375 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Hollis (1873) 12 Cox CC 463 . . . .[8-s 27.1] — v Holmes [2003] NSWCCA 258; BC200305376 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Holton (2004) 41 MVR 89 . . . .[8-s 52AA.1] — v Holzer [1968] VR 481 .[8-s 18.55], [8-s 18.60] — v Hopton (NSWCCA, Spigelman CJ, Abadee and Ireland JJ, 8 October 1998, BC9805510) .[8-s 52A.15] — v Hornby (NSWCCA, 3 March 1985, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v Horsington and Bortolus [1983] 2 NSWLR 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-cl 21.15] — v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426; 104 A Crim R 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] — v Horvath [1972] VR 533 . . . . . .[8-s 52A.35] — v — (NSWCCA, 6 February 1986, BC8601273) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v House [2005] NSWCCA 88; BC200501960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1] — v Houssein (1980) 70 Cr App R 267 .[2-s 161.5] — v Howard (1992) 29 NSWLR 242 . .[7-100], [7105], [7-150] — v Howars [1993] Crim L R 213 . . . .[8-s 28.1] — v Howe [1987] AC 417; [1987] 1 All ER 771 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Howes (2000) 2 VR 141; 116 A Crim R 249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61H.10] — v Hua [2002] NSWCCA 384; BC200205679 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v Huang [2010] NSWCCA 68; BC201002330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Hudd (NSWCCA, Carruthers, Newman and Dowd JJ, 60800/1993, 9 December 1994, BC9403564) . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Hudson (NSWCCA, 24 May 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 29.20] — v Hughes & Curtis (1983) 49 ALR 110; 10 A Crim R 125 . . . . . . . .[10-s 29.10], [10-s 29.15] — v Hull (1989) 16 NSWLR 385; 41 A Crim R 262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.1], [2-s 8.10] — v Humphries (1997) 98 A Crim R 233 . . . .[8-s 208.10] — v Hunt [1999] NSWCCA 375; BC9907764 .[2-s 117.5], [2-s 214.5] — v Hunter (NSWCCA, 12 August 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65]

— v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472 . .[2-s 157.1], [2-s 207.1] — v Hussey (1924) 18 Cr App R 121 . .[8-s 58.30] — v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152; BC201807221 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91H.1] — v Hutty [1953] VLR 338; [1953] ALR 689; ALR 689 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 20.1], [8-s 22A.1] — v Huynh (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Levine and Dowd JJ 13 May 1996, BC9601945) . . .[10-s 25.45] — v Ibrahimi [2005] NSWCCA 153; BC200502338 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Iby (2005) 63 NSWLR 278; 45 MVR 1 . .[8-s 18.65], [8-s 20.1] — v IL [2016] NSWCCA 51; BC201602329 . .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.20] — v Ingivald (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Lee CJ and Campbell J, 60101/1986, 14 April 1989, BC8902289) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 23.5] — v Ingrassia (1997) 41 NSWLR 447; 91 A Crim R 383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.5] — v Inwood [1973] 2 All ER 645 . . . .[21-s 99.5] — v Ion (1996) 89 A Crim R 81 . . . . .[2-s 132.1] — v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 . . .[8-s 18.62], [8-s 24.30] — v Itamua [2000] NSWCCA 502; BC200007658 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Jackson (1890) 17 Cox CC 104 . . .[8-s 29.1] — v — (1864) 9 Cox CC 505 . . . . .[8-s 125.20] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 110; BC200402093 .[10-s 25A.1] — v Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452 .[8-s 18.110] — v Jamal (2008) 72 NSWLR 258 . . . .[2-s 30.1] — v — (1993) 69 A Crim R 544 . . . .[8-s 61I.45] — v Jameson [1896] 2 QB 425 . . . . . . .[7-160] — v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580 . .[2-s 8.1], [2-s 8.10], [2-s 16.40], [2-s 17.0], [2-s 126.1], [2-s 130.1], [7-150], [8-s 52A.45] — v Janceski (No 2) (2005) 44 MVR 328 . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Jarrold (1863) Leigh Cave 301 . . .[8-s 111.5] — v Jasper (2003) 139 A Crim R 329 . .[10-s 3.80] — v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18 . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v JDB (2005) 153 A Crim R 164 . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Jell; Ex parte A-G [1991] 1 Qd R 48; 46 A Crim R 161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-105] — v Jenkins (1877) Knox 295 . . . . . .[8-s 35.65] — v Jenkyns (1993) 32 NSWLR 712 . .[8-s 61I.45] — v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241; BC201609289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 56.1] — v Jimenez (2000) 119 A Crim R 299 . . . .[21-s 49.45] — v Jione [2007] NSWCCA 170; BC200704860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33.20] — v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 . . . . . .[7-525] — v Johal [1973] 1 QB 475; (1972) 56 Cr App R 348

References are to paragraph numbers

xlvii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 29 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:20 bwpageid:: 47:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.1] — v John [1974] 1 WLR 624 . . . . . .[11-125.25] — v Johnson [1945] KB 419 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Clarke AJA and Studdert J, 60262/1989, 3 July 1990, BC9002976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 23.5] — v — (1786) 2 East PC 448 . . . . . .[8-s 112.5] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 186; BC200503397 .[5-s 21A.1] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 76; BC200402002 . .[5-s 21A.5] — v — (1979) 22 SASR 161; 4 ACLR 80 .[7-475] — v Johnson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 609; BC201703781 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 25A.15] — v Johnstone [2004] NSWCCA 307; BC200405937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Jolly [1982] VR 46 . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Jones (1974) 59 Cr App R 120 . . .[2-s 17.1], [2-cl 21.5] — v — (1986) 22 A Crim R 42 . . . . .[8-s 23A.1] — v — (1839) 9 C P 258 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 27.15] — v — (1995) 78 A Crim R 504 . . . . .[8-s 58.20] — v — (NSWCCA, Lee, Roden and Newman JJ, 441/1987, June 1988, BC8801835) . . . . .[8-s 327.10] — v — (NSWCCA, Carruthers J, Abadee J, Blanch J, 60630/1993, 14 April 1994, BC9402488) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-170] — v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 . .[8-s 18.15] — v Jorgic (1963) 80 WN (NSW) 761 .[2-s 161.10] — v Jovanovic (1997) 98 A Crim R 1 .[2-s 161.10] — v Joyce [1968] NZLR 1070 . . . . . .[8-s 97.10] — v JTAC [2005] NSWCCA 345, . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209; 101 A Crim R 259; 29 MVR 49 . . .[5-s 37.1], [8-s 52A.45] — v Justelius [1973] 1 NSWLR 471 . . .[2-s 16.35] — v Kain (1985) 38 SASR 309 . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152 .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 23.1] — v Kalazich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41 . .[5-s 61.1] — v Kaliti (2001) 34 MVR 160 . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47 . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527; 157 A Crim R 238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 396; BC200308057 .[8-s 93G.15] — v Kane (2004) 144 A Crim R 496 . .[21-1010.3] — v Karageorge [1999] NSWCCA 213; BC9904370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1] — v Kastratovic (1985) 42 SASR 59; 19 A Crim R 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613; BC200203724 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 418.1] — v Kawicki (1995) 82 A Crim R 191 . . . . .[8-s 310G.5] — v Kayrouz (NSWCCA, 6 July 1979, unreported)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.25] — v Keenan (2009) 236 CLR 397; 252 ALR 198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v — (1994) 76 A Crim R 374 . . . .[8-s 545B.5] — v Kelly (1993) 113 ALR 535; 30 NSWLR 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Kendrick (1931) 144 LT 748; 23 Cr App Rep 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] — v Kennedy (1997) 94 A Crim R 341 .[2-s 8.10], [2-s 36.1], [7-220] — v — (2000) 118 A Crim R 34 . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Kennedy (No 2) [2008] 1 AC 269; [2007] 4 All ER 1083; [2007] 3 WLR 612 . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Kenney [1983] 2 VR 470 . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v Kent-Newbold (1939) 62 CLR 398 . . .[7-160] — v Kenworthy (NSWCCA, Grove, Newman, Dunford JJ, 3 August 1995, unreported) . .[5-s 44.15] — v Kerekes [1951] 70 WN(NSW) 102 .[2-s 21.15] — v Kern [1986] 2 Qd R 209; (1985) 18 A Crim R 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-575] — v Keur (1973) 7 SASR 13; 2 ALR 237 . . .[2-s 17.1], [5-s 10.5] — v Khoo (2013) 97 ACSR 1 . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] — v Khouzame (1999) 108 A Crim R 170 . . .[8-s 61I.7] — v Kilby (No 1) [1970] 1 NSWR 158 . .[2-s 31.1] — v Kilic (2016) 339 ALR 229; 91 ALJR 131 .[5-s 21.1] — v Kinash (1981) 5 A Crim R 240 . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Kindon (1957) 41 Cr App R 208 .[8-s 117.20] — v King [2013] NSWSC 448; BC201302092 .[2-s 132.1] — v — [2000] NSWCCA 507; BC200007789 .[2-s 161.40] — v — (2004) 59 NSWLR 515; 144 A Crim R 405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 162.1] — v — (2003) 59 NSWLR 472; 139 A Crim R 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.1], [8-s 33.1] — v — [2009] NSWCCA 117; BC200903121 .[8-s 61I.65], [8-s 66A.40] — v — [1987] QB 547 . . . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v — [1978] Crim LR 228 . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v — (2004) 150 A Crim R 409 . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Kinghorne (1982) 8 A Crim R 41 .[8-s 52A.5], [8-s 52A.10] — v Kipic [2004] NSWCCA 452; BC200408651 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330; BC200006176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Kirkwood [1982] Qd R 158 . . . . .[10-s 3.10] — v Kitchener (1993) 29 NSWLR 696 .[8-s 61I.5] — v Kite (1992) 60 A Crim R 226 . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450 . . .[7-485] — v Knight (1988) 35 A Crim R 314 . . .[8-s 58.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

xlviii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 30 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:21 bwpageid:: 48:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v — (2001) 160 FLR 465; 120 A Crim R 381 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 133.3] — v Knight; R v Biuvanua (2007) 176 A Crim R 338 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v KNL (2005) 154 A Crim R 268 . . .[5-s 10.1] — v Kolalich (NSWCCA, Cole JA, Allen and Sperling JJ, 60641/1993, 9 October 1995, BC9505504) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-805] — v Komornick [1986] VR 845; (1984) 14 A Crim R 256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Koolmatrie (1989) 52 SASR 482 . .[2-s 19.5] — v Koosmen (2004) 42 MVR 123 . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Kouroumalos [2000] NSWCCA 453; BC200006730 . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.10] — v Kovacs [1974] 1 All ER 1236; (1974) 138 JP 425; (1973) 58 Cr App Rep 412 . . . . . .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192D.5], [8-s 192E.20] — v Krause (1902) 18 TLR 238; 66 JP 121 . . .[8-s 26.25] — v Kringle [1953] Tas SR 52 . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Kyroglou [1999] NSWCCA 106; BC9902349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Lackey [1954] Crim LR 57 . . . . .[8-s 112.5] — v Ladue (1965) 51 WWR 175; [1965] 4 Can Crim R 264 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 81C.5] — v Lago [2014] NSWSC 660; BC201403986 .[9-s 19.10] — v Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460 . . .[10-s 10.25] — v Lamb (1967) 51 Cr App R 417 . . .[8-s 18.55] — v — [2002] NSWSC 357; BC200203802 . .[21-s 112.1] — v Lambert (1976) 65 Cr App Rep 12 .[8-s 58.5] — v Lameri and Cohen [2004] NSWCCA 217; BC200404129 . . . . . . . . .[7-225], [7-450] — v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157; BC201105360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.62] — v Lang [1965] NSWR 1313 . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Langham (1984) 36 SASR 48; 12 A Crim R 391 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.15], [8-s 117.35] — v Lanteri (1985) 4 NSWLR 359 .[2-cl 21.5], [8-s 351.15] — v Lardner (NSWCCA, 10 September 1998, BC9804715) . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5], [8-s 59.5] — v Larkin [1943] 1 All ER 217 . . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Lars aka Larsson (1994) 73 A Crim R 91 .[2-s 21.1], [2-s 154.5] — v Lattouf (1980) 2 A Crim R 65 . . .[2-s 150.1] — v Lau (1998) 105 A Crim R 167 . .[10-s 10.15] — v Lavelle (1987) 2 Crim LJ 105 . .[8-s 527C.10] — v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; 218 ALR 521 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.40], [8-s 18.50] — v Lawrence [1981] 1 All ER 974; (1981) 73 Cr App R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.1] — v — [1980] 1 NSWLR 122; (1980) 32 ALR 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30], [5-s 21.1]

— v Le [2000] NSWCCA 49; BC200001004 . .[8-s 61I.10] — v — (2005) 151 A Crim R 564 . . .[21-s 99.10] — v Le Boursicot (1994) 79 A Crim R 548 . . .[2-s 118.1], [2-s 216.1] — v Leahy [2004] NSWCCA 148; BC200402757 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 11.1] — v Lean and Aland (1993) 66 A Crim R 296 .[8-s 58.20] — v Lee (1994) 76 A Crim R 271 . . .[10-s 33.10] — v Leete (2001) 125 A Crim R 37 .[5-s 24.1], [5-s 51.1] — v Lemene (2001) 118 A Crim R 131 . .[5-s 33.1] — v Lenard (1992) 57 SASR 164; 58 A Crim R 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Leoni [1999] NSWCCA 14; BC9900970 . .[8-s 97.10] — v Lester; R v Byast (1955) 30 Cr App R 157 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Lewis [1969] 2 QB 1 . . . . . . . .[2-s 150.1] — v — [2001] NSWCCA 448; BC200106902 .[8-s 19A.1] — v — (1833) 9 C P 523 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 29.1] — v — (1914) 10 Tas LR 48 . . . . . .[8-s 327.10] — v Lewis-Hamilton [1998] 1 VR 630; (1997) 92 A Crim R 532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Li (2003) 140 A Crim R 288 . . . .[2-s 285.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Abadee and Studdert JJ, 9 July 1997, BC9703285) .[8-s 61J.2], [8-s 95.2], [8-s 97.2], [8-s 105A.1] — v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 . .[2-s 207.1] — v Lineham [1921] VLR 582; 27 ALR 348 . .[8-s 327.15] — v Liristis (2004) 146 A Crim R 547 .[7-600], [8-s 327.5] — v Lister (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 491 . .[2-s 16.35] — v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512 . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Livingstone (2004) 150 A Crim R 117 . . .[2-s 142.5] — v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.1] — v — [1985] 3 WLR 30 . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.15] — v Lo [2003] NSWCCA 313; BC200306668 .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 23.1] — v Locchi (1991) 22 NSWLR 309 . . .[10-s 3.70], [10-s 25.1] — v Lolesio [2014] NSWCCA 219; BC201408696 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] — v Longbottom (1849) 3 Cox CC 439 .[8-s 18.50] — v Longshaw (1990) 20 NSWLR 554; (1990) 50 A Crim R 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-001] — v Lopatta (1983) 35 SASR 101 . . .[8-s 112.15], [8-s 117.35] — v Love (1989) 17 NSWLR 608 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; BC201405292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Lowe (2003) 57 NSWLR 102; 139 A Crim R 240

References are to paragraph numbers

xlix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 31 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:23 bwpageid:: 49:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v — [1933] 1 KB 529 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Mansfield (NSWCCA, 17 February 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Mansour (1999) 29 MVR 409 . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Manton (2002) 132 A Crim R 249 . .[8-s 60.5] — v Manwaring [1983] 2 NSWLR 82; 12 A Crim R 253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.25] — v Marchione (2002) 128 A Crim R 574 . . .[10-s 6.10] — v Marcus [2016] NSWCCA 237; BC201609121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5], [9-s 67.1] — v — [1981] 2 All ER 833 . . . .[8-s 39.10], [8-s 41.10] — v Marie (1983) 13 A Crim R 440 . .[2-cl 21.20], [10-s 25.25] — v Markby (1978) 140 CLR 108; 21 ALR 448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.20] — v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; 125 A Crim R 186 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] — v Marshall (NSWCCA, 15 October 1990, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 150.5] — v — (1987) 49 SASR 133 . . . . . . .[8-s 29.1] — v Marsham; Ex parte Pethick Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 362; [1911–13] All ER Rep 639 . . . .[2-s 193.5], [2-s 202.10] — v Martin (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 720; 21 WN (NSW) 233 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.1] — v — (1984) 51 ALR 540; 16 A Crim R 87 .[8-s 18.55] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 190; BC200503395 .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5], [5-s 44.15] — v Martindale [1986] 3 All ER 31 . . . .[8-s 7.1] — v Maslen (1995) 79 A Crim R 199 . . . . . .[8-s 192G.20] — v Mason (1820) 168 ER 876 . . . . .[8-s 94.10] — v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; 59 A Crim R 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.20] — v Matthews (1950) 34 Cr App R 55 .[8-s 117.30] — v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531; BC200007665 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] — v McAuliffe (1993) 70 A Crim R 303 . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v McBride [1962] 2 QB 167 . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v McCallum (NSWCCA, Priestley JA, Smart and Ireland JJ, 60715/93, 13 April 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] — v McConnell [1977] 1 NSWLR 715 .[2-s 21.10] — v — (1993) 69 A Crim R 39 . . . . .[8-s 188.15] — v McCormack [2015] NSWCCA 221; BC201507788 . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5] — v — [1981] VR 104 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93B.15] — v McCoy (2001) 51 NSWLR 702 . . .[10-s 6.10] — v McCready (1985) 20 A Crim R 32 .[2-cl 21.5] — v McDonald [1980] 2 NZLR 102; [1983] NZLR 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v — [1984] 1 NSWLR 428 . . . . .[2-s 161.10]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 311.1], [8-s 322.10] — v LRS [2001] NSWCCA 338; BC200105260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v Lucas (1970) 120 CLR 171; [1970] ALR 835 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.20] — v Ludlow [1971] AC 29; [1970] 1 All ER 567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.5] — v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287; BC201610564 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 44.10] — v Lumsden [1951] 2 KB 513; [1951] 1 All ER 1101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 112.5] — v Lun (1932) 32 SR (NSW) 363 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Lusher [1976] 1 NSWLR 227 . . . . .[7-805] — v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8; BC200500707 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.10], [2-s 21.5], [2-s 21.15] — v Lynch [1979] 2 NSWLR 775; (1979) 1 A Crim R 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 285.1] — v M [1980] 2 NSWLR 195; (1979) 4 ACLR 610 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 192G.25] — v — [1991] 2 Qd R 68 . . . . . . . . . .[7-475] — v MA [2001] NSWCCA 30; BC200100796 .[5-s 28.1], [5-s 30.1] — v MacDonald [1983] AC 252 . . . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v — (2000) 110 A Crim R 238 .[2-s 154.1], [2-s 167.1], [7-165] — v Macdonald (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Hunt CJ, 12 December 1995, BC9501664) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1], [8-s 24.30] — v MacDonald [1983] 1 NSWLR 729 . . . . .[8-s 117.25] — v Macdonald; R v Maitland [2017] NSWSC 638; BC201704214 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24C.1] — v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44 . . .[5-s 23.1], [10-s 25.25] — v MacIntyre (1988) 38 A Crim R 135 . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v MacKenzie (1995) 82 A Crim R 473 . . . .[8-s 328.1] — v Madercine (1899) 15 WN (NSW) 235 . . .[2-s 16.1] — v Maginnis [1987] AC 303 . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Maharaj (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Beazley JA and Donovan AJ, 60558/1997, 1 May 1998, BC9801519) . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.10], [7-100] — v Maher (2005) 154 A Crim R 457 .[8-s 93B.15] — v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371 . .[2-s 16.1], [2-s 19.5] — v MAK [2005] NSWCCA 369; BC200509808 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v MAK and MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159 . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 21A.10], [5-s 22.5] — v Makisi (2004) 151 A Crim R 245 .[2-s 161.63], [8-s 98.15], [8-s 428B.1] — v Malcherech [1981] 1 WLR 690 . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203; 112 A Crim R 570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 116.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

l

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 32 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:24 bwpageid:: 50:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v — (2005) 154 A Crim R 40 . . .[8-s 203E.10] — v Milnes and Green (1983) 33 SASR 211 . .[2-s 32.5], [7-160] — v Mitchell (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Cole, Sperling JJ, 60321/94, 5 April 1995, BC9504682) .[2-s 161.45], [7-170] — v — [1983] 1 QB 741 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Mitchell, R v Gallagher (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33.20] — v MJB [2014] NSWCCA 195; BC201408161 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 53A.5] — v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; 130 A Crim R 481 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 19.1] — v MM (2004) 145 A Crim R 148 . . .[2-s 159.1], [2-s 160.1], [7-477] — v — (2000) 112 A Crim R 519 . . .[2-s 161.45] — v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481 . .[5-s 3A.1] — v Moffat (NSWCCA, Blanch J, 21 June 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114; 49 A Crim R 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v Mohamadin [2004] NSWCCA 401; BC200408093 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Mok (1987) 27 A Crim R 438 .[2-s 16.5], [2-cl 21.5], [7-495] — v Molloy [1921] 2 KB 364 . . . . . .[8-s 139.5] — v Moore [2015] NSWCCA 316; BC201512362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50] — v — [1979] Crim LR 789 . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30] — v Morgan (1993) 30 NSWLR 543; 67 A Crim R 526 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v — [1970] 3 All ER 1053 . . . . .[8-s 249B.5] — v Morgan; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1987] 2 Qd R 627; (1986) 24 A Crim R 342 . . .[2-s 161.25], [8-s 23A.1] — v Morris (1867) 10 Cox CC 480 . . .[2-s 193.5] — v — [1983] 3 All ER 288 . . . . . . .[8-s 118.1] — v Morrison (1889) 10 LR (NSW) 197 .[2-s 31.1] — v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735; (1992) 65 A Crim R 542; 65 A Crim R 542; (1992) 65 A Crim R 452 .[1-020], [2-s 19.1], [2-s 227.10], [7-915] — v Mossop (1991) 9 Petty SR 4453 . . .[11-140.5] — v Most (1881) 7 QBD 244 . . . . . .[8-s 26.20] — v Moussad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.25] — v — (1999) 152 FLR 373 . . . . . . .[2-s 16.25] — v MPW (NSWCCA, 14 December 1995, BC9507332) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 133.1] — v MSK and MAK (2004) 61 NSWLR 204; 148 A Crim R 453 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 294A.1] — v Muldoon (1870) 9 SCR (NSW) 116 . . . .[8-s 327.15] — v Munro (2001) 51 NSWLR 540 . . .[8-s 58.15], [8-s 58.20], [8-s 418.1] — v — (1981) 4 A Crim R 67 . . . . . . .[8-s 96.5] — v Murnin (NSWCCA, 16 August 1985, unreported)

v — [1992] 2 Qd R 634 . . . . . . .[8-s 117.20] v — (1998) 28 MVR 432 . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] v McEndoo 5 A Crim R 52 . . . . .[2-s 161.15] v McGarritty (NSWCCA, Grove J, Studdert J, Blanch J, 60556/93, 10 June 1994, BC9405228) . . . . . .[2-s 156.1], [2-s 193.5], [8-s 18.110] — v McGarvey (1987) 10 NSWLR 632; 34 A Crim R 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v McGarvie (1986) 5 NSWLR 270 . .[8-s 23A.1] — v McGuigan and Cameron (1991) Crim LR 719 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-185.5] — v McHardie [1983] 2 NSWLR 733; (1983) 10 A Crim R 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-455] — v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588 . . .[5-s 47.1] — v McIntyre (2000) 111 A Crim R 211 . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v McLean (1981) 5 A Crim R 36; 5 Petty SR 2497 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.30], [10-s 13.10] — v McLean and Funk; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1991] 1 Qd R 231; (1990) 47 A Crim R 240 .[2-s 32.5] — v McLoughlin; Ex parte DPP [1988] 1 Qd R 464; (1987) 31 A Crim R 256 . . . . . . . .[7-105] — v McMahon (NSWCCA, 26 June 1996, BC9602908) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v — (NSWCCA, 23 June 1978, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.30] — v McMillan [2005] NSWCCA 28; BC200500727 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [8-s 52A.45] — v McMullen (1990) 54 SASR 55 . . .[8-s 161.1] — v McNamara [1954] VLR 137; ALR 291 . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1965] VR 372 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.10] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 195; BC200503393 .[5-s 21A.5] — v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; 163 A Crim R 381 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v McNeil (2015) 250 A Crim R 12 . .[2-s 132.1] — v McPhail (1988) 36 A Crim R 390 .[21-s 133.3] — v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355; BC200406985 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.25] — v Meissner (1994) 76 A Crim R 81 .[2-s 222.25], [2-s 222.30] — v Mellifont (1992) 64 A Crim R 75 . . .[7-105] — v Melville (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 579 . . . .[2-s 161.30] — v Merrin (2007) 174 A Crim R 100 . .[5-s 55.1] — v Merrit [1999] NSWCCA 29; BC9900749 .[2-s 161.15] — v Merritt [2002] NSWCCA 368; BC200205146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 10.1] — v — (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; 146 A Crim R 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 61.1] — v Messeruy (1932) 49 WN 221 . . . .[8-s 99.20] — v Millard (1906) 23 SR (NSW) 38 .[8-s 125.15] — v Mills (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Cole JA, Sperling J, 3 April 1995, BC9504475) . . . .[8-s 19A.1] — — — —

References are to paragraph numbers

li

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 33 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:26 bwpageid:: 51:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Murphy [1965] VR 187 . . . . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v — (1985) 158 CLR 596; 61 ALR 139 .[1-200], [8-s 319.5] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 182; BC200503070 .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Murray [1906] 2 KB 385 . . . . . .[2-s 16.20] — v — (NSWCCA, Lee, Reynolds and Campbell JJ, 136/1986, 11 September 1986, BC8601280) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v — (NSWCCA, Newman and Barr JJ 29 October 1997, BC9705899) . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Musumeci (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, McInerney and Hulme JJ, 30 October 1997, BC9705741) .[8-s 52A.45] — v Naa [2009] NSWSC 851; BC200908038 . .[2-s 281.1] — v Nahlous (2010) 77 NSWLR 463; 201 A Crim R 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Nai Poon (2003) 56 NSWLR 284 .[10-s 25.25] — v Naizmand [2016] NSWSC 836; BC201605159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 1.15] — v Nanka [1984] 1 NSWLR 722 . .[8-s 310D.15] — v Negus (1873) LR 2 CCR 34 . . . .[8-s 156.5] — v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130; BC201605494 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 66A.40] — v Nerbas [2012] 1 Qd R 362; (2011) 210 A Crim R 494 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183; BC200403547 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.15] — v Nguyen (1995) 36 NSWLR 397 . .[8-s 58.20] — v — (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, Ireland J and Bell AJ, 20 February 1997, BC9700251) . .[8-s 121.5] — v — (2004) 149 A Crim R 343 . . .[8-s 319.15] — v — [2002] NSWCCA 183; BC200202582 .[5-s 10.1] — v Nguyen; R v Cannistra [2006] NSWCCA 389; BC200610047 . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 23.50] — v Niass [2005] NSWCCA 120; BC200501841 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v — (NSWCCA, Gleeson and Lee CJJ, Allen J, 16 November 1988, BC8801314) . . . .[5-s 24.1] — v Nicolaidis (1994) 33 NSWLR 364; 72 A Crim R 394 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-150] — v Nilson [1971] VR 853 . . . . .[7-405], [7-600] — v Novakovic [2004] NSWCCA 437; BC200408421 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195; BC200303815 .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 23.1] — v Nundah (1916) 16 SR (NSW) 482 . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 219; BC201208031 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53.5], [5-s 53A.5] — v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 .[2-s 289I.1], [2-s 306S.1], [2-s 306U.1], [2-s 306Z.1] — v O’Brien (1921) 21 SR 136 . . . . .[8-s 117.20]

— v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397 . . .[2-s 160.1] — v — (2005) 151 A Crim R 597 . . .[8-s 105A.1], [8-s 112.7] — v — (1917) 23 CLR 9 . . . . . . . .[8-s 159.30] — v Ogochukwu [2004] NSWCCA 473; BC200409545 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v O’Grady (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Hunt CJ and Sully J, 13 May 1997, BC9703122) . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310; BC9906740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; 166 ALR 330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Oliver (1984) 57 ALR 543 .[2-s 161.40], [2-cl 21.20] — v — (1980) 7 A Crim R 174 . . . . . .[5-s 21.1] — v O’Loughlin; Ex parte Ralphs (1971) 1 SASR 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Olsen [2005] NSWCCA 243; BC200505162 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v OM (2011) 212 A Crim R 293 . . .[8-s 312.5], [8-s 319.5] — v O’Meagher (1997) 101 A Crim R 196 . . .[8-s 61I.5] — v O’Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582; (1979) 1 A Crim R 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 153.1] — v O’Neill (2001) 122 A Crim R 510 .[21-s 10.1] — v O’Neill & Parker (1980) 2 A Crim R 401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.15] — v Onufrejczyk [1955] 1 QB 388 . . .[8-s 18.65] — v Orchard (1993) 70 A Crim R 289 .[10-s 23.35] — v Orcher (1999) 48 NSWLR 273 . .[8-s 326.10] — v Orton [1922] VLR 469 . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Overall (1993) 71 A Crim R 170 . .[8-s 59.20] — v Overton (1843) 4 QB 83 . . . . . .[8-s 327.10] — v Owens (1987) 30 A Crim R 59 . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Ozcan (NSWCCA, 1 December 1988, BC8802303) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Packer [1932] VLR 225 . . . . . . .[8-s 79.1] — v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 . . .[8-s 18.15] — v Painter (1870) 9 SCR (NSW) 277 . .[2-s 17.0] — v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 . . . .[5-s 11.1] — v Panetta (1997) 2 MVR 332 . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Pangallo (1989) 51 SASR 254; 44 A Crim R 462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.10] — v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83; BC200104818 .[5-s 10.1] — v Park [2003] NSWCCA 203; BC200304065 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.15] — v Parker [1974] 1 NSWLR 14 . . . .[7-640], [8-s 188.15] — v Partridge (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 410 .[2-cl 21.5] — v Pateman (1983) 33 A Crim R 212; [1984] 1 Qd R 312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485]

References are to paragraph numbers

lii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 34 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:27 bwpageid:: 52:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v Paterson (2006) 163 A Crim R 122 . . . . .[9-s 16A.10] — v Patterson [1962] 2 QB 429 . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Payne (1866) LT 1 CCR 27 . . . .[8-s 310C.5] — v Pearce [1966] 3 All ER 618 . . . .[8-s 212.15] — v Pearson [2005] NSWCCA 116; BC200502327 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Peehi (1997) 41 NSWLR 476 . . .[8-s 310D.5] — v Peel [1971] 1 NSWLR 247 . . . . . .[5-s 21.1] — v Peisley (1990) 54 A Crim R 42; (1992) 16 Crim LJ 197 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v Penich and Maxwell (1991) 55 A Crim R 464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1], [7-475] — v Pennisi [2001] NSWCCA 326; BC200105217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Perez (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Campbell J, 11 December 1991, BC9101351) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33B.3] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 218; BC200404318 .[5-s 44.10] — v Perez-Vargas (1987) 8 NSWLR 559 .[5-s 23.1] — v Perry (No 1) (1981) 27 SASR 166 . . .[7-485] — v Peters and Heffernan (1995) 83 A Crim R 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Petroff (1980) 2 A Crim R 101 . . .[2-s 161.5] — v Petronius-Kuff [1983] 3 NSWLR 178; (1978) 8 A Crim R 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.5] — v Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190; BC200404890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.15] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 94; BC200501606 . .[5-s 47.1], [5-s 57.1], [8-s 310D.35] — v Phillips [1971] ALR 740; (1971) 45 ALJR 467 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1973] 1 NSWLR 275 . . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Phung [2001] NSWSC 115; BC200100670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 112.1] — v Piccin (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 323; BC200105655 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.1] — v Picknell [1970] 1 NSWR 604; (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 731 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-505] — v Pierpont (1993) 71 A Crim R 187 .[8-s 114.10] — v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202 . .[10-s 25.25], [10-s 29.25], [10-s 43.5] — v Piltz (2004) 59 NSWLR 538 . . .[8-s 93G.20] — v Pipe (1966) 51 Cr App Rep 17 . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v Pittman (1862) 172 ER 192 . . . .[8-s 117.20] — v PJE (NSWCCA, 9 October 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 293.1] — v PL (2009) 261 ALR 365 . . . .[8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.40] — v Plimmer (1975) 61 Cr App R 264 .[2-s 161.65] — v Pocock (1851) 5 Cox CC 172 . . . .[8-s 18.50] — v Popescu (1989) 39 A Crim R 137 . . .[7-575] — v Porte [2015] NSWCCA 174; BC201505867 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91H.1] — v Porter (2004) 61 NSWLR 384; 186 FLR 350

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.10] — v Potisk (1973) 6 SASR 389 . .[8-s 117.15], [8-s 117.55] — v Potter (1994) 72 A Crim R 108 . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Powles (1831) 4 C & P 571 . .[8-s 27.45], [8-s 39.35], [8-s 41.35] — v PPB [1999] NSWCCA 360; BC9907459 . .[5-s 23.1] — v Preval [1984] 3 NSWLR 647 . . .[8-s 61H.5] — v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 28.5], [8-s 19A.1], [8-s 24.30], [8-s 52A.45] — v PRFN [2000] NSWCCA 230; BC200003392 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.20] — v Price (2016) 75 MVR 89 . . .[2-s 168.1], [5-s 53A.5] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 186; BC200405783 .[8-s 52A.45] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 285 . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Ptohopoulos (1967) 52 Cr App Rep 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.10] — v Puciarello (NSWCCA, 4 June 1990, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.5], [10-s 25.1] — v — (NSWCCA, 4 June 1990, BC9002361) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Pullen (2018) 87 MVR 47 . . .[5-s 68.5], [8-s 52AB.5] — v Pullman (1991) 25 NSWLR 89 . .[8-s 18.55], [8-s 54.10] — v Purdy [1982] 2 NSWLR 964; (1982) 7 A Crim R 122 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.1], [8-s 23A.10] — v Pureau (1990) 19 NSWLR 372 . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 61I.20] — v Purtell (2001) 120 A Crim R 317 .[8-s 319.15] — v Qaumi [2016] NSWSC 1473; BC201610277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 132.1] — v Quartly (1986) 11 NSWLR 332; 22 A Crim R 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23.3] — v Quin [2009] NSWCCA 16; BC200900696 .[5-s 44.15] — v Quinn (NSWCCA, 13 June 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 23.5] — v — (1991) 55 A Crim R 435 . . . .[2-s 161.20] — v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74; 44 A Crim R 404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 154.1], [7-525] — v — (1995) 63 SASR 417; 180 LSJS 443; 79 A Crim R 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.20] — v R2 (1990) 19 NSWLR 513 . .[10-s 4.1], [10-s 29.5] — v Raabe (1984) 14 A Crim R 381 . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Raad [1983] 3 NSWLR 344 . . . .[8-s 188.15] — v Radic (2001) 122 A Crim R 70 . .[8-s 117.60] — v Radju (2001) 53 NSWLR 471 . . . . .[7-800] — v Radley (1973) 58 Cr App R 394 . . .[2-s 21.1] — v Rae [2013] NSWCCA 9; BC201300291 . .[5-s 53.5], [5-s 53A.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

liii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 35 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:28 bwpageid:: 53:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v — [2002] NSWCCA 359; BC200205630 .[5-s 22.5] — v Robson [1978] 1 NSWLR 73 . . . .[8-s 86.1] — v Roddom [2001] NSWCCA 168; BC200102187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Rogers (1868) 1 LR 136 . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1] — v — (1996) 86 A Crim R 542 . . .[8-s 310D.25] — v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; 107 ALR 225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v — (1990) 51 A Crim R 359 . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Rolfe (1952) 36 Cr App Rep 4 . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Rondo (2001) 126 A Crim R 562 .[21-s 21.1], [21-s 99.10], [21-s 120.1] — v Rose [2003] NSWCCA 411; BC200308558 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.1] — v — (1993) 69 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . .[7-575] — v Rowe (2001) 50 NSWLR 510; 118 A Crim R 421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 281.1] — v Rowland [1910] 1 KB 458 . . . . .[8-s 502.5] — v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104; BC200201374 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.25] — v Rugari (2001) 122 A Crim R 1 . . .[2-s 160.1] — v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594 . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Rushton [1967] VR 842 . . . . . . .[2-s 17.1] — v Russell-Jones (1995) 1 Cr App Rep 538; 3 All ER 239 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Russell-Smith (1981) 35 ACTR 31; 51 FLR 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133; BC200203809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191 . . .[8-s 23A.1] — v — (2003) 39 MVR 395; 141 A Crim R 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v — (1890) 11 LR (NSW) 171 . . . .[8-s 58.45] — v Rye (1909) 2 Cr App R 155 . . . .[8-s 117.45] — v Rymer (2005) 156 A Crim R 84 . . . .[7-495] — v S [2016] NSWCCA 189 . . . . . .[9-s 16A.5] — v — (1991) 22 NSWLR 548 . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v — (2000) 111 A Crim R 225 . .[5-s 23.1], [5-s 44.15] — v SA [2011] NSWCCA 60; BC201102131 . .[211380.5], [21-s 133.5] — v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 . . . .[2-s 207.1] — v Salameh (1986) 26 A Crim R 353 .[8-s 94.10] — v Saldaneri [2001] NSWCCA 480; BC200107856 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v Saleib [2005] NSWCCA 85; BC200501605 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Salisbury [1976] VR 452 . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Salvo [1980] VR 401 . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Sanders (1991) 57 SASR 102 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Sandford (1994) 33 NSWLR 172 . .[2-s 36.1], [2-s 161.1], [7-225], [7-485], [7-640] — v Saraswati (1989) 47 A Crim R 1 . . . .[7-001] — v Saunders (2002) 37 MVR 270; 133 A Crim R 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.15]

— v Rahme [2004] NSWCCA 233; BC200404413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v — (1993) 70 A Crim R 357 . . . .[11-395.10] — v Ramsay [1967] NZLR 1005 . . . . .[8-s 18.1] — v Randall (1991) 53 A Crim R 380 .[8-s 61H.1], [8-s 61H.5] — v Ransford (1874) 31 LTNS 488 . . .[8-s 26.25] — v RAT (2000) 111 A Crim R 360 . .[2-s 161.20], [2-s 161.45] — v Rawcliffe [1977] 1 NSWLR 219 .[10-s 10.10] — v Rawlinson (2013) 246 A Crim R 1 . .[2-s 30.1] — v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616 . . . .[2-s 161.62] — v Raz (NSWCCA, 17 December 1992, BC9201407) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] — v Read (2010) 55 MVR 280 . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181 .[8-s 94.20] — v Reardon (No 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; 146 A Crim R 475 . . . . . . . .[2-s 142.5], [7-485] — v Rees [2001] NSWCCA 23; BC200100279 .[8-s 18.55] — v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109 . .[2-s 161.10] — v — (CCA(NSW), 13 September 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] — v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258; BC9905412 .[2-s 281.1] — v — [1999] NSWCCA 355; BC9907386 . . .[8-s 323.10] — v Reinsch [1978] 1 NSWLR 483 . . . .[5-s 10.1] — v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381; [1962] ALR 483 . .[8-s 58.55], [8-s 546C.5], [8-s 546C.15] — v Reynolds (NSWCCA, Slattery CJ at CL, Reynolds and Carruthers JJ, 22 August 1986, BC8601306) . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 114.10] — v — (NSWCCA, 25 August 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.1] — v Rice (2004) 150 A Crim R 37 . .[8-s 105A.1] — v Richards (1994) 64 SASR 42; 77 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v — (CCA(NSW), 27 November 1995, BC9501889) . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.55] — v — (1974) QB 776 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Richardson (1998) 3 WLR 1292 . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Riddell [2009] NSWCCA 96; BC200902409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v RJS (1993) 31 NSWLR 649 . . . .[8-s 61J.1] — v RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122; BC9908888 .[2-s 161.45] — v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 . .[8-s 18.15] — v — (1994) 73 A Crim R 306 . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v Robinson (2000) 111 A Crim R 388 . . . .[2-s 161.20] — v — [2000] NSWSC 972; BC200006239 . .[2-s 161.45] — v — (NSWCCA, 15 September 1989, BC8901702) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 11.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

liv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 36 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:30 bwpageid:: 54:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v — (1993) Petty SR 4537 . . . . . .[10-s 25.1] — v Sayak (NSWCCA, Clarke JA, Hunt CJ at CL, Grove J, 16 September 1993, BC9304078) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1] — v Sbarra (1917) 13 Cr App R 118 . .[8-s 188.15] — v Scaramanga [1963] 2 QB 807; [1963] 2 All ER 852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Schaffer (2005) 153 A Crim R 372 . . . . .[8-s 322.20] — v Schelberger (NSWCCA, Yeldham, Grove and McInerney JJ, 2 June 1988, BC8801878) .[8-s 24.30] — v Schipanski (1989) 17 NSWLR 618 . .[8-s 7.1], [8-s 188.15] — v Schlesinger (1847) 10 QB 670 . . .[8-s 327.5] — v Schneidas (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 713 . .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 18.25] — v Scott (2003) 39 MVR 166; 141 A Crim R 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v — [1967] VR 276 . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.20] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 286; BC200305880 .[5-s 22.5] — v — (1993) 42 FCR 1; 116 ALR 703 . .[7-001], [7-105] — v SDM (2001) 51 NSWLR 530; 127 A Crim R 318 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 97.20] — v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313 . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Seller; R v McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; BC201503262 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Selvage [1982] QB 372 . . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Senior (1832) 1 Mood CC 346 . . . .[8-s 20.1] — v Sepulveda [2003] NSWCCA 131; BC200302273 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 20.1] — v Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 . .[2-s 202.1] — v Seymour [1954] 1 All ER 1006; 1 WLR 678; (1954) 38 Cr App Rep 68 . . . . . . .[2-cl 7.1] — v — [1954] 1 WLR 678 . . . . . . .[8-s 117.50] — v — [2001] NSWCCA 272; BC200103962 .[10-s 25A.1] — v Shaluga (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 120; 58 SR (NSW) 151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.5] — v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253; BC200305296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Sharah (1992) 30 NSWLR 292; 63 A Crim R 361 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.20] — v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300; 130 A Crim R 238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Sharp (2003) 143 A Crim R 344 . .[2-s 281.1] — v Shashati (2018) 85 MVR 194 . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Shaw (1991) 57 A Crim R 425 . . . . .[7-485] — v Shenton [2003] NSWCCA 346; BC200307075 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Shephard [1919] 2 KB 125; [1918-19] All ER Rep 374 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 26.15] — v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351; BC200307249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 35.5]

— v — [1999] NSWCCA 162; BC9903822 . .[10-s 25.25] — v Sheppard [1981] AC 394; [1980] 3 All ER 899 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 53.5] — v Shortus (1917) 17 SR (NSW) 66 . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Silver [1956] 1 All ER 716; 1 WLR 281 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.5] — v Simon [2005] NSWCCA 123; BC200501844 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.10] — v Simonds (NSWCCA, Priestley JA, Wood J and Finlay J, 60479/1990, 6 May 1991, BC9102035) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v Simpson [1956] VLR 490; ALR 623 .[2-s 31.1] — v — (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; 126 A Crim R 525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Sing (2002) 54 NSWLR 31 . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Skaf [2004] NSWCCA 74; BC200401711 .[8-s 61I.48] — v Skivington (1967) 51 Cr App R 167 . . . .[8-s 94.15] — v Slack [2004] NSWCCA 128; BC200402455 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367; BC200205109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v — (1996) 90 A Crim R 519 . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v SLD [2002] NSWSC 758; BC200204988 .[5-s 60C.5] — v — (2003) 58 NSWLR 589; 142 A Crim R 503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 60C.5] — v Smails (1957) 74 WN 150 . . . . .[8-s 117.30] — v Smart [1963] NSWR 706; (1962) 80 WN (NSW) 1125 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.25], [2-s 161.30] — v Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47 . . . .[10-s 25A.5] — v Smith [1995] 1 VR 10; (1994) 73 A Crim R 384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v — [2000] NSWCCA 468; BC200007410 .[2-s 161.10] — v — [1959] 2 QB 35 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.15] — v — (1837) 8 C & P 173 . . . . . . . .[8-s 35.5] — v — [1982] 2 NSWLR 569; 8 A Crim R 131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61H.1] — v — (1827) 1 Mood 178 . . . . . . .[8-s 112.5] — v — [1960] 2 QB 423; [1960] 1 All ER 256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 133.5] — v — (1982) 7 A Crim R 437 .[8-s 192B.15], [8-s 192E.20] — v — (NSWCCA, 11 September 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v — [1974] 2 NSWLR 586 . . . . . .[11-125.20] — v — (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 268; 65 WN (NSW) 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-505] — v Smith and Bardini (NSWCCA, 11 September 1987, unreported) . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 115.5] — v Smith (EJ) [1982] 2 NSWLR 608 .[2-s 160.1], [7-405]

References are to paragraph numbers

lv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 37 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:31 bwpageid:: 55:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Smith (GWJ) [1982] 2 NSWLR 490 . . . .[8-s 80AB.1] — v Solomon [1980] 1 NSWLR 321 .[2-s 161.20], [8-s 18.5] — v — (2005) 153 A Crim R 32 .[5-s 21A.5], [8-s 97.20] — v Solway (1984) 2 Qd R 75 . . . . .[10-s 10.25] — v Southammavong [2003] NSWCCA 312; BC200306669 . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v Spartels [1953] VLR 194; ALR 554 . . . .[8-s 27.15], [8-s 58.25] — v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; BC2001204915 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 86.15] — v Sperotto [1970] 1 NSWR 502; (1970) 71 SR(NSW) 334 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Spicer (2003) 139 A Crim R 206 . .[10-s 6.10] — v Spiero (1979) 22 SASR 543 . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v Spiteri (2004) 61 NSWLR 369 . . .[2-s 142.5], [7-485] — v Spurge [1961] 2 QB 205; 45 Cr App R 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.20] — v Stackelroth (1996) 86 A Crim R 438 . . . .[2-s 285.1], [2-s 289.1] — v Stambolis (2006) 160 A Crim R 510 .[5-s 22.5] — v Stanford (NSWCCA, 19 September 1990, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 26.10] — v Stanley (NSWCCA, 7 April 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 233; BC200304770 .[8-s 97.20] — v Stanton (1991) 52 A Crim R 164 . .[2-s 8.10], [7-220] — v Stead [1994] 1 Qd R 665; (1992) 62 A Crim R 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 32.5] — v Steele (1952) 70 WN (NSW) 167 .[8-s 117.10] — v Stevens (1991) 23 NSWLR 75; 102 ALR 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.20] — v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301; 124 A Crim R 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.40] — v Stewart; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1989] 1 Qd R 590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.25] — v Stokes (1925) Cr App R 71 . . . . .[8-s 27.65] — v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.30], [8-s 117.35] — v Stone (1995) 85 A Crim R 436 . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364; 22 ALR 47 .[2-s 193.5] — v Stoupe [2015] NSWCCA 175; BC201505960 . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.20], [8-s 91K.1] — v Strahan (1855) 7 Cox CC 85 . . . . . .[7-160] — v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139; BC200502036 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] — v Stringer (2000) 116 A Crim R 198 .[2-s 16.15] — v Su [1997] 1 VR 1; (1995) 129 FLR 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Sukkar (2006) 172 A Crim R 151 . .[5-s 23.1]

— v Sullivan (NSWCCA, Gleeson, Powell, Hulme JJ, 22 August 1995, BC9505248) . . .[2-s 289.1] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 100; BC200301699 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Sultana (1994) 74 A Crim R 27 . .[10-s 25.40] — v Sumner [1935] VLR 197; ALR 350 . . . .[8-s 327.15] — v Supple (1870) 1 VR 151 . . . . . .[8-s 18.10] — v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697 . . .[2-s 161.62] — v — (1877) 13 Cox CC 648 . . . . . . .[8-s 4.5] — v — (2004) 41 MVR 40 . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Swan (2003) 140 A Crim R 243 . .[10-s 3.45] — v Swift (NSWCCA, 11 April 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291; BC200306107 .[5-s 22.5] — v Tadman (2001) 34 MVR 54 . . . .[8-s 52A.45] — v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740 .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v Taha (2000) 120 A Crim R 161 . . .[8-s 97.5] — v Tahau [1975] 1 NSWLR 479 . . . . .[8-s 4.20] — v Taikmaskis (1986) 19 A Crim R 383 . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v Tait [1990] 1 QB 290; [1989] 3 All ER 682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 20.1] — v Taktak (1988) 14 NSWLR 226; 34 A Crim R 334 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.50] — v Tangmashuk (1986) 7 NSWLR 551 .[2-s 31.1] — v Tannous, Fahda and Dib [2012] NSWCCA 243; BC201209067 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 154G.5] — v Tao [1977] 1 QB 141 . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.5] — v Taouk (NSWCCA, Mahoney JA, Hunt CJ at CL, Badgery-Parker J, 17 December 1992, BC9203128) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.20] — v — [1982] 2 NSWLR 974 . .[10-s 3.10], [10-s 23.35] — v Tarrant [2018] NSWSC 774; BC201804245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.5] — v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194; BC200306670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 20.1], [7-150] — v — (2002) 129 A Crim R 146 .[8-s 18.27], [8-s 418.1] — v — (1904) 21 WN (NSW) 43 . . .[8-s 131.15] — v Taylor and Little [1992] 1 All ER 299; QB 645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Teasdale (2004) 145 A Crim R 345 .[2-s 160.1] — v Templeton [1956] VLR 709; ALR 706 . . .[8-s 310D.10] — v Thabo Meli [1954] 1 WLR 228 . . .[8-s 18.1] — v Thawer [2009] NSWCCA 158; BC200904895 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 54C.1] — v Thiagarajah (1989) 41 A Crim R 45 .[5-s 21.1] — v Thomas (1985) 81 Cr App R 331 . .[8-s 58.5] — v — (1992) 65 A Crim R 269 . . . . .[8-s 58.20] — v — (1953) 37 Cr App R 169 . . . .[8-s 117.20] — v — (1993) 67 A Crim R 308 . . . . .[10-s 6.10]

References are to paragraph numbers

lvi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 38 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:32 bwpageid:: 56:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES — v — (1981) 6 A Crim R 66 . . . . .[10-s 10.20] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 269; BC200709863 .[5-s 21A.10] — v — [1957] 2 All ER 181 . . . . . . .[11-380.5] — v Thomas Sam (No 14) [2009] NSWSC 561; BC200905452 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-600] — v Thompson (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 250 . . . .[2-s 21.1] — v — (NSWCCA, 24 June 1976, unreported) .[2-s 153.1] — v — (1988) 36 A Crim R 223 . . . .[8-s 23A.1] — v — [1976] 2 NSWLR 453 . . . . .[8-s 52A.30] — v — (1945) 45 SR(NSW) 374 . . . . . .[7-640] — v Thomson (NSWCCA, Street CJ, Lee and Foster JJ, 380/1985, 21 May 1986, BC8601015) .[8-s 310D.35] — v Thomson and Dann (2002) 134 A Crim R 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.5] — v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; 115 A Crim R 104 . . . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 37.1] — v Thorpe [1972] 1 WLR 342; [1972] 56 CR App R 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Thurborn (1848) 169 ER 293 . . .[8-s 117.15] — v Tierney (1885) 1 WN (NSW) 114a .[8-s 35.65] — v Tight (NSWCCA, Yeldham, Lusher and Carruthers JJ, 14 March 1986, BC8601309) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v Tillett; Ex parte Newton (1969) 14 FLR 101 . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.10], [21-s 48.35] — v Tillot (1995) 38 NSWLR 1 . . . .[8-s 61I.45] — v Tillott (1991) 53 A Crim R 46 . .[2-s 161.15], [2-s 161.25], [8-s 115.5] — v Timmins [1976] Crim LR 129 . .[8-s 310D.5] — v Tobar (2004) 150 A Crim R 104 . .[5-s 44.10] — v Todd (1977) 6 A Crim R 105 . . .[10-s 10.20] — v Toki [2003] NSWCCA 125; BC200302309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.10] — v Toksoz [2015] NSWSC 1234 . . . .[9-s 16A.5] — v Tolmie (NSWCCA, 7 December 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v — (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, McInerney and Bruce JJ, 60503/94, 7 December 1994, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 192.5] — v — (1995) 37 NSWLR 660 . . . . .[8-s 61I.5] — v Toma [2018] NSWCCA 45; BC201801975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91D.20] — v Tonks [1963] VR 121 . . . . . . . . . .[7-170] — v Tonner [1985] 1 All ER 807 . . . . . .[7-455] — v Tout (1987) 11 NSWLR 251 . . . .[8-s 61K.5] — v Towers (1984) 14 A Crim R 12 . .[2-s 154.1], [7-525] — v Towle (1954) 72 WN (NSW) 338 . . . . .[2-s 161.20], [2-s 161.25], [2-cl 21.5] — v Towner (1991) 56 A Crim R 221 .[2-s 161.10] — v Tracey (1895) 6 QLJ 272 . . . . . . .[8-s 29.1] — v Trad [2003] NSWCCA 213; BC200304257

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Traino (1987) 45 SASR 473; 27 A Crim R 271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 327.5] — v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572; 56 A Crim R 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Treacy [1971] AC 537 . . . . . . . .[8-s 99.15] — v Trindall (2002) 133 A Crim R 119 . .[5-s 11.1] — v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183 . . . . .[2-s 161.5], [7-640] — v Trivett (NSWCCA, 13 June 1991, BC9101892) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-640] — v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428; 68 A Crim R 536 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.1], [8-s 23A.10] — v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim R 252 .[2-cl 21.5], [10-s 26.1] — v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247; BC201708556 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525] — v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8; BC201500546 .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 28.1] — v Tubou [2001] NSWCCA 243; BC200103428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v Tugaga (1994) 74 A Crim R 190 . . . .[7-525] — v Tuhakaraina (2016) 75 MVR 434 . .[5-s 44.10] — v Tuki (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 1864 . . . . .[8-s 93T.10] — v Turnbull (No 1) [2016] NSWSC 189; BC201604060 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 30.1] — v Turner (1910) 4 Cr App Rep 203 . .[8-s 27.1] — v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40; BC201402311 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Tyford (1893) 14 LR (NSW) 51 . . .[2-s 31.1] — v Uhrig (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, Newman and Ireland JJ, 60200/1996, 24 October 1996, BC9605087) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] — v Underhill (NSWCCA, Street CJ, Hunt and Campbell JJ, 9 May 1986, BC8601036) . .[8-s 97.20] — v Utans (1982) 29 SASR 592; 5 A Crim R 315 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] — v Vaa [2006] NSWCCA 44; BC200601076 .[5-s 55.1] — v Valentini (1989) 46 A Crim R 23 . .[8-s 94.20] — v Valera [2002] NSWCCA 50; BC200201640 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 61.1] — v Van Beelen (1973) 4 SASR 353 . .[8-s 18.20] — v Van der Lubbe (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 140; (1949) 49 SR (NSW) 309 . . . . .[8-s 545B.1] — v Van Dyk [2000] NSWCCA 67; BC200001101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 80AB.1] — v Vanecek (1954) 72 WN (NSW) 72 .[2-s 152.1] — v Varley [1973] 2 NSWLR 427 .[2-s 160.1], [8-s 18.65] — v Vasic (2005) 11 VR 380; 155 A Crim R 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 192D.5] — v Veatufunga (2007) 47 MVR 324 .[8-s 52A.50] — v Velardi (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Allen and James

References are to paragraph numbers

lvii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 39 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:34 bwpageid:: 57:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 JJ, 60611/1995, 24 May 1996, BC9601940) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-150] — v Velevski (2000) 117 A Crim R 30 . .[9-s 22.5] — v Vella (NSWCCA, Mahoney, Grove and Sperling JJ, 15 December 1995, unreported) .[8-s 24.30] — v Venables (1908) 8 SR 612; (1908) 25 WN (NSW) 190 . . . . .[8-s 117.20], [8-s 126.10] — v Venna [1976] QB 421 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Veverka [1978] 1 NSWLR 478 . .[2-s 161.30] — v VHP (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Handley JA and Studdert J, 60733/1996, 7 July 1997, BC9702876) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Vickers (1975) 61 Cr App R 48 . .[8-s 23A.1] — v Viers [1983] 2 Qd R 1 . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 361 . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Vu (NSWCCA, 11 November 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 94.20] — v Wade (1869) 11 Cox CC 549 . . .[8-s 117.35] — v Wald (1971) 3 DCR (NSW) 25 . . .[8-s 84.5] — v Walkden (1845) 1 Cox CC 282 . . .[8-s 58.5] — v Walker (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Allen J and Barr AJ, 20 November 1995, BC9501896) . . .[8-s 58.20] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 109; BC200501614 .[5-s 21A.5] — v Walsh (2002) 131 A Crim R 299 . .[2-s 161.7] — v — (1990) 52 A Crim R 80 . . . .[8-s 192D.5] — v — [2004] NSWCCA 428; BC200408411 .[5-s 59.5] — v Walters (1992) 62 A Crim R 16 . . .[8-s 121.5] — v Waqa (No 2) (2005) 156 A Crim R 454 . .[5-s 23.1] — v Ward (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 308; 55 WN 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 117.5], [8-s 125.15] — v Waring (No 2) [1972] Qd R 263 . . . .[7-405] — v Waterhouse (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 217 . . .[8-s 117.15] — v Watkins (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Cole JA, Sperling J, 5 April 1995, BC9504520) . . .[8-s 188.15] — v Way [1981] 2 NSWLR 653; (1981) 3 A Crim R 465 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.30] — v — (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5], [5-s 44.10], [5-s 44.15], [5-s 44.25] — v Weatherall [1968] Crim LR 115 . .[8-s 39.10] — v Weatherspoon (NSWCCA, 4 December 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] — v Weatherstone (1987) 8 Petty SR 3729 . . .[8-s 117.30] — v Weaver (1931) 45 CLR 321 . .[2-cl 21.5], [2-cl 21.15], [7-001] — v Webb and Hay (1992) 64 A Crim R 38 . .[2-s 160.1] — v Webley (1967) 111 Sol Jo 111 . . .[8-s 114.10] — v Webster (1998) 43 NSWLR 256; 100 A Crim R 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020]

— v Webster and Jones (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Hunt CJ at CL and Mathews J, 3 August 1992, BC9201710) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1] — v Wen Fei Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104; BC200601976 . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] — v West [1962] 2 All ER 624; [1962] 3 WLR 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 202.10] — v — (1848) 175 ER 329 . . . . . . . .[8-s 20.1] — v — [2011] NSWCCA 91 . . . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v — (1880) 1 LR(NSW) 329 . . . . .[8-s 131.5] — v — [1948] 1 KB 709 . . . . . . . . . . .[7-100] — v Westerman (1991) 55 A Crim R 353 . . . .[2-s 16.15] — v Whalen (2003) 56 NSWLR 454 . .[10-s 23.30] — v Wheeldon (1839) 8 Carrington & Payne 747 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 112.10] — v Wheeler (1844) 1 Cox CC 106 . . . .[8-s 33.5] — v Wheller (1829) 3 C P 585 . . . . . .[8-s 56.10] — v White (NSWCCA, 25 July 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-cl 21.20] — v — [1910] 2 KB 124 . . . . . . . . .[8-s 18.70] — v — (1904) 21 WN(NSW) 104 . . .[8-s 117.15] — v — (1853) 169 ER 696 . . . . . . .[8-s 117.15] — v — (1912) 7 Cr App R 266 . . . . .[8-s 117.15] — v — (CCA(NSW), Spigelman CJ, Sheller JA and Newman J, 23 June 1998, BC9803139) . .[5-s 22.5] — v Whitmore (1999) 109 A Crim R 51 . . . .[8-s 61I.10] — v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; 37 MVR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 37.1], [8-s 52A.45] — v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193; BC200403646 . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5], [5-s 44.15] — v Wilhelm (2010) 77 NSWLR 1; 200 A Crim R 413 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 38.10], [8-s 39.7] — v Wilk (1982) 32 SASR 12 . . . . . . .[2-s 17.1] — v Wilkes (2001) 122 A Crim R 310 . .[2-s 207.1] — v Williams [2018] NSWSC 994; BC201805517 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] — v — (1990) 50 A Crim R 213 . .[2-s 161.1], [8-s 58.5], [8-s 59.10] — v — (1999) 104 A Crim R 260 . . . .[2-s 161.1] — v — (1986) 21 A Crim R 460 . . . .[8-s 117.35] — v — (1982) 7 A Crim R 46 . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v — [2005] NSWCCA 99; BC200501608 . .[5-s 21A.1], [5-s 21A.5] — v — (2005) 62 NSWLR 481; 152 A Crim R 405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 51.1] — v Williams and Dark [1908] QWN 33 .[8-s 33.5] — v Williamson (2000) 1 VR 58 . . . . .[8-s 18.25] — v Williamson and Morell (NSWCCA, 11 October 1991, unreported) . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 21.10] — v Williamson (No 1) (1996) 67 SASR 428 . .[2-s 161.1] — v Wills [1983] 2 VR 201 . . . . . . .[8-s 18.55] — v Wilson (1994) 34 NSWLR 1; 73 A Crim R 532

References are to paragraph numbers

lviii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 40 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:35 bwpageid:: 58:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] — v — (1979) 69 Cr App R 83 . . . . .[2-s 16.25] — v — (1992) 174 CLR 313; 107 ALR 257 . .[8-s 18.25], [8-s 18.55], [8-s 18.60] — v — [1955] 1 All ER 744 . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1985] 2 Qd R 420 . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — [1996] 3 WLR 125 . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v — (2005) 62 NSWLR 346 . . . . . .[5-s 28.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Spigelman CJ, Sully and Ireland JJ, 60599/97, 15 July 1998, BC9805276) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-405] — v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528 . .[2-s 133.1] — v Winningham (NSWCCA, 10 May 1995, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 133.1] — v — (NSWCCA, Studdert, Sully and James JJ, 60486/94, 10 May 1995, unreported) . . . .[8-s 93G.10] — v Withers [1975] AC 842 . . . . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v Wong (1988) 37 A Crim R 385 . .[2-s 161.20], [2-cl 21.5] — v — (1999) 48 NSWLR 340; 154 FLR 80 . .[5-s 37.1] — v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184; BC201407793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 24.30] — v Woodland (1836) 1 M R 549 . . . .[8-s 150.5] — v Woodman [1974] QB 754 . . . . .[8-s 117.15] — v Woods [2009] NSWCCA 55; BC200903214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 66A.40] — v Woodward [1995] 2 Cr App R 388 . . . . .[8-s 52A.15] — v Worthington [1921] VLR 660 . . . .[8-s 133.5] — v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273; (2003) 143 A Crim R 503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v Wright (NSWCCA, Grove, Ireland and Levine JJ, 8 July 1997, BC9702913) . . . .[8-s 26.25] — v — (1879) 2 SCRNS 110 . . . . . . .[8-s 29.1] — v — [1980] VR 593; (1980) 4 ACLR 931 . .[8-s 192G.25] — v — (1976) 62 Cr App Rep 169 . . .[10-s 10.20] — v Wynn (1887) 16 Cox CC 231 . . .[8-s 125.20], [8-s 125.25] — v XHR [2012] NSWCCA 247; BC201209166 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525], [8-s 61I.1] — v XX [2017] NSWCCA 90; BC201703330 .[5-s 23.1] — v — [2009] NSWCCA 115; BC200902934 .[5-s 55.1] — v XY (2013) 84 NSWLR 363; 231 A Crim R 474 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 1.30], [9-s 66.15] — v Yates (1963) 80 WN (NSW) 744; [1963] SR (NSW) 477 . . . .[8-s 97.5], [8-s 114.10], [8-s 546B.1] — v Yildiz (2006) 160 A Crim R 218 .[5-s 21A.5], [10-s 25.1] — v Youkana [2005] NSWCCA 231; BC200504601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 59.20]

— v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412; BC200408415 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5], [8-s 97.20] — v Young [2006] NSWSC 1499 . . . . .[9-s 22.5] — v — (1999) 46 NSWLR 681; 107 A Crim R 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 222.40] — v — [2003] NSWCCA 276; BC200305724 .[8-s 94.20] — v — [1953] 1 All ER 21 . . . . . . .[8-s 188.35] — v — (NSWCCA, 27 October 1993, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 310D.35] — v Zaiter [2005] NSWCCA 61; BC200500749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.15] — v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17; BC200200346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 5.1] — v Zeilaa [2009] NSWSC 532; BC200905192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] — v Zischke [1983] 1 Qd R 240 . . . . . . .[7-640] — v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91; 47 A Crim R 211 .[2-s 160.1], [2-s 161.1], [2-s 161.25], [7-405], [10-s 3.60] — v — [1979] 2 NSWLR 764 . . . . . .[8-s 61I.5] Radi v R [2010] NSWCCA 265; BC201008770 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.40] Rainbow v — [2018] NSWCCA 42; BC201801897 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.1] Rajendran v — [2010] NSWCCA 322; BC201009864 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 20.1] Ramey v — (1994) 68 ALJR 917 . . . .[2-s 161.35] Ramos v — [2018] NSWCCA 206; BC201808865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 193B.5] Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642 . . . . .[8-s 23A.10] Ran v R (1996) 16 WAR 447 . . . . . .[2-s 222.30] Raspor v — (1958) 99 CLR 346 . . . .[2-s 161.30] Ravnjak, Appeal of (1973) 3 DCR(NSW) 166 . .[8-s 58.45] Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Tectran Corp Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 272 . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Re Asmar [2005] VSC 487; BC200510874 . . .[9-s 16A.10] Re Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (No 3 of 2002) (2004) 61 NSWLR 305; 147 A Crim R 546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.1] Re Avory; Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2003) (2003) 87 SASR 392; 143 A Crim R 514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 6.10] Re Culleton (No 2) (2017) 91 ALJR 311 .[5-s 25.5] Re Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Reference No 1 of [2019] HCA 9; BC201901939 .[7-530] Re F [1990] 2 AC 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Re Glover (1885) 2 WN (NSW) 27b . .[11-380.15] Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374; BC200205230 . . .[2-s 19.10] Re M (an infant) [1968] 1 WLR 1897 . .[2-s 190.1] Re Marland [1963] 1 DCR 224 . . . . .[11-125.20]

References are to paragraph numbers

lix

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 41 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:37 bwpageid:: 59:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Rogers v Arnott [1960] 2 QB 244 . . . .[8-s 125.20] — v R (1994) 181 CLR 251; 123 ALR 417 . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 193.5] Rogerson v — (1992) 65 A Crim R 530 . . . . .[2-s 161.15] Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529; 19 FLR 322 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.25] Roos v R [2019] NSWCCA 67; BC201902300 .[2-s 161.30] Rose v Kempthorne (1910) 103 LT 730; 22 Cox CC 356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.40] — v Matt [1951] 1 KB 810 . . . . . . .[8-s 117.10] Rosza v Samuels [1969] SASR 205 . . . .[8-s 58.5] Rowell v Larter (1986) 6 NSWLR 21; 24 A Crim R 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 49.5] Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378; 100 ALR 669 .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.5], [8-s 18.10], [8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.25] Roylance v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) [2018] NSWSC 933; BC201805860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 182.1] RP v R [2013] NSWCCA 192; BC201312214 . .[5-s 21A.5], [5-s 28.1] RPS v — (2000) 199 CLR 620; 168 ALR 729 .[2-s 161.35] Russell v — [2010] NSWCCA 248; BC201008531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] — v Wilson (1923) 33 CLR 538; 30 ALR 75 .[21-s 219.5] RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147; BC201004918 . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.40] Ryan v Kuhl [1979] VR 315 . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] — v R (1967) 121 CLR 205; [1967] ALR 577; (1967) 40 ALJR 488 . . . .[8-s 18.1], [8-s 18.15], [8-s 18.20], [8-s 98.10] — v — (2001) 206 CLR 267; 179 ALR 193 . .[5-s 21A.10], [5-s 22.5] S v — (1989) 168 CLR 266; 89 ALR 321; 45 A Crim R 221 . .[2-s 8.1], [2-s 16.5], [2-s 16.15], [2-s 16.25], [2-s 19.5], [8-s 61I.7], [10-s 3.70], [10-s 25.1] Saad v — (1987) 70 ALR 667; 61 ALJR 243; 29 A Crim R 20 . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.15] Saddler v — [2009] NSWCCA 83; BC200902237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Saffron (No 1) v — (1988) 17 NSWLR 395; 36 A Crim R 262 . . . . . . . . .[2-cl 21.5], [7-495] Saffron v FCT (No 1) (1992) 109 ALR 695 . . .[2-s 33.5] Sako v Anthony (SC(NSW), 8 March 1991, BC9102654) . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61.25] Saleam v R (1989) 16 NSWLR 14; 39 A Crim R 406 . . .[2-s 222.30], [2-s 222.35], [8-s 121.5], [8-s 188.25] Saler v Klingbiel [1945] SASR 171 . . .[8-s 58.25] Salter v DPP [2011] NSWCA 190; BC201105364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 308B.5]

Re Munton v West [1927] 1 Ch 262 . . . .[8-s 53.5] Re Seidler [1986] 1 Qd R 486 . . . . . . . .[7-105] Re Van Beelen (1974) 9 SASR 163 . . . . .[7-485] Reardon v Baker [1987] VR 887; (1987) 25 A Crim R 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 12.1] Reddy v R (2018) 86 MVR 96 . . . . . .[5-s 47.1] Redman v — [2015] NSWCCA 110; BC201504333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 132.1] — v Willcocks (2010) 79 NSWLR 226 . .[8-6830.5] Reece v Harris [1943] SASR 127 . . . .[8-s 125.15] Reeves v R [2013] NSWCCA 34; BC201300682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33.5], [8-s 58.5] — v — (2013) 304 ALR 251; 88 ALJR 215 . .[8-s 58.5] Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) v Craven (No 1) (1994) 126 ALR 668; 77 A Crim R 410 . .[2-s 33.5] Reid v Nominal Defendant (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 601 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.15] Relf v Webster (1978) 24 ACTR 3 . . . .[10-s 12.1] Rend v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 178 . . . . .[7-495] Reynolds v — (1983) 10 A Crim R 30 . .[5-s 55.1] Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414; 2 All ER 649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 546C.15] Richardson v R [2013] NSWCCA 218; BC201313312 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 19A.1] — v — (1974) 131 CLR 116; 3 ALR 115 . .[7-485] Ridgeway v — (1995) 184 CLR 19; 129 ALR 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Riley v — [2011] NSWCCA 238; BC201108764 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 38.10], [8-s 39.7] Ringstaad v Butler [1978] 1 NSWLR 754 . . .[10-s 3.1], [10-s 3.5], [10-s 40A.1] Ristevski v R [2007] NSWCCA 87; BC200702579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.62] Ritson v Myers [2013] NSWCA 176; BC201303074 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 556.1] RJS v R 173 A Crim R 100 . . . . . . .[2-s 161.12] RJT v — [2012] NSWCCA 280; BC201209875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 23.1] RM v — [2012] NSWCCA 35; BC201201583 .[2-s 19.5] Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Conolly (2003) 57 NSWLR 310; 38 MVR 444 . .[2-s 222.30] Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd [1910] AC 295 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.30] — v New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 231; BC201809521 . . . . .[21-s 99.1], [21-s 99.5] — v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 88 . . . . . . .[7-625] — v R (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531; 102 ALR 493; 65 ALJR 644 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] Rodden v R (2008) 182 A Crim R 227 .[2-s 161.45] Roff v — [2017] NSWCCA 208; BC201706782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Rogan v Hyde (1995) 84 A Crim R 519 .[2-s 32.5], [2-s 33.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

lx

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 42 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:38 bwpageid:: 60:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Crim R 466 . . .[2-s 161.15], [2-cl 21.20], [5-s 21.1] Shepherd v — (1990) 170 CLR 573; 97 ALR 161; 65 ALJR 132; 51 A Crim R 181 . . .[2-s 161.10], [2-s 161.15] — v — (1988) 94 FLR 55; 37 A Crim R 303 .[2-cl 21.5] SHR v — [2014] NSWCCA 94; BC201404288 .[5-s 53A.5] Shultz v Pettitt (1980) 25 SASR 427 . . .[2-s 16.35] Shumack v R [2008] NSWCCA 311; BC200811198 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.45] Siafakas v — [2016] NSWCCA 100; BC201605018 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 24.5], [10-s 25.1] Silbert v DPP (WA) (2004) 205 ALR 43; 78 ALJR 464 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 208.5] Simpson v R [2014] NSWCCA 23; BC201401108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 61I.65] Singh v — [2019] NSWCCA 110; BC201904571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 112.5] Sivaraja v R; Sivathas v R [2017] NSWCCA 236; BC201708307 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 418.1] Sivell v R [2009] NSWCCA 286; BC200910950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Skondin v — [2005] NSWCCA 417; BC200510614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 150.1] Slattery v — (1905) 2 CLR 546 . . . .[8-s 125.15] Sloggett v Adams (1953) 70 WN (NSW) 206 . .[2-s 179.5] Slotboom v R [2013] NSWCCA 18; BC201301009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 40.1] Small v — (1994) 33 NSWLR 575; 72 A Crim R 462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 36.1], [7-400] Smith and Kirton v — (1990) 47 A Crim R 43 .[2-s 16.1], [7-100], [8-s 94.55], [8-s 95.35] Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960 .[8-s 94.10], [8-s 117.10] — v Moody [1903] 1 KB 56 .[2-s 16.5], [2-s 16.15] — v R (1985) 159 CLR 532; 71 ALR 631 . . .[2-s 36.1], [7-405] — v — (1970) 121 CLR 572; [1971] ALR 183 .[2-s 161.5] — v — [2007] NSWCCA 138; BC200703798 .[5-s 21A.5] — v Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) 76 Cr App R 234 . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Smithers v Andrews; Ex parte Andrews [1978] Qd R 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-455] Soames v R [2012] NSWCCA 188; BC201206674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-600] Soma v — (2003) 212 CLR 299; 196 ALR 421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-495] Sorby v Cth (1983) 152 CLR 281; 46 ALR 237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 33.5] Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 . . . . . . .[1-485], [2-s 202.15] Southon v Plath obh Dept of Environment and

Sam v R (2011) 206 A Crim R 67 . . . .[8-s 18.50] Samuel v — [2017] NSWCCA 239; BC201708383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; 21 ALR 505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-200] Sasterawan v Morris (2007) 69 NSWLR 547 . .[2-s 14.1], [2-s 173.1], [2-s 174.1] SAT v R [2009] NSWCCA 172; BC200905662 .[5-s 54B.1] Saunders v — (1994) 72 A Crim R 347 .[2-s 21.15] Savvas v — (1995) 183 CLR 1; 129 ALR 319 .[2-cl 21.20] Sawtell v Regan (1882) 3 LR(NSW) 362 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.15] SBF v R (2009) 53 MVR 438; 198 A Crim R 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 24.15] SC v — [2019] NSWCCA 25; BC201900783 . .[8-s 61I.65] Schiavini v — (1999) 108 A Crim R 161 . . . .[2-s 281.1] Schneidas (No 2) (1981) 4 A Crim R 101 . .[7-555] Schreiber v Santora 1935 AR (NSW) 168 . . . .[2-s 16.15] Scott v Metropolitan Police Cmr [1975] AC 819 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-cl 21.15] — v R [2011] NSWCCA 221; BC201107783 . .[8-s 24.30] See v Milner (1980) 2 A Crim R 210 . .[10-s 10.40] Selbeck v McDonald [1978] 1 NSWLR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-425.1] Seong Won Lee and Do Young Lee v R (2012) 224 A Crim R 278 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] Sergi v DPP (NSWCCA, Kirby P, Meagher and Handley JJA, 40518/1991, 10 September 1991, BC9101577) . . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.10], [7-010] Seymour v Price (FCA, French, O’Connor and North JJ, 8 September 1998, BC9805031) . . . .[2-s 228.5] SGJ v R [2008] NSWCCA 258; BC200809879 .[5-s 33.1] Sharman v DPP (2006) 161 A Crim R 1 .[2-s 178.1] Sharp v McCormick [1986] VR 869 . .[8-s 117.30] — v R [2012] NSWCCA 134; BC201204615 . .[8-s 33.5] Sharrett v Gill (1993) 113 FLR 316; 65 A Crim R 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-485] Shaw v DPP [1961] 2 All ER 446; [1962] AC 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-380.5] — v R [2010] NSWCCA 23; BC201001197 . .[5-s 23.1] — v — (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 . . . . .[5-s 55.1] — v — (1952) 85 CLR 365; [1952] ALR 257 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-495] Sheen v — [2011] NSWCCA 259; BC201109701 . . . . . . . .[2-s 162.1], [7-625], [8-s 115A.5] Shepherd (No 2) v — (1988) 16 NSWLR 1; 37 A

References are to paragraph numbers

lxi

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 43 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:40 bwpageid:: 61:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 Climate Change [2010] NSWCCA 292; BC201009506 . . .[2-s 257C.5], [2-s 257D.5] Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140; BC201204954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 24.30] Sparkes v — [2015] NSWCCA 203; BC201507094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Sparos v — [2013] NSWCCA 223; BC201313586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 33.1] Spence v Loguch (1990) 9 Petty SR 4404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] Spratt v DPP [2010] NSWSC 355; BC201002668 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] Stafford v R (1993) 67 ALJR 510 . . . .[2-s 161.35] Standen v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) [2011] NSWCCA 187; BC201106085 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Stanley v Farlow (2001) 161 FLR 250 . .[2-s 192.5] — v Powell [1891] 1 QB 86 . . . . . . .[8-s 58.30] Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16 . . .[1-020], [2-s 11.1], [2-s 16.25], [2-s 16.35], [2-s 50.5] — v Dawson (1987) 31 A Crim R 104 . . .[1-440] — v R (2003) 198 ALR 41 . . .[7-805], [8-s 18.25] State Pollution Control Commission v Tallow Products Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 517; 65 A Crim R 509 . . . . . . .[2-s 156.1], [2-s 193.5] Steer v R (2008) 191 A Crim R 435 . .[2-s 161.62] Steffan v — (1993) 30 NSWLR 633 . . . . .[7-525] Stevens v — [2007] NSWCCA 152; BC200704397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93C.15] Stewart v — (1921) 29 CLR 234; 27 ALR 173 .[2-s 31.1] — v — [2009] NSWCCA 152; BC200904561 .[8-s 24.30] Stingel v — 97 ALR 1 . . .[2-s 161.30], [8-s 23.3] Stoeski v — [2014] NSWCCA 161; BC201406653 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 53A.5] Sturdy v Katarzynski (NSWSC, Sperling J, 17 March 1997, unreported . . . . . . . . .[8-s 527C.35] Stutsel v Reid (1990) 20 NSWLR 661 .[11-125.15] Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1; 79 ALJR 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] — v — [2013] NSWCCA 159; BC201303198 .[5-s 53A.5] Sudath v — [2008] NSWCCA 207; BC200807955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 294B.1] Suleman v — [2009] NSWCCA 70; BC200901710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Sullivan v — [2011] NSWCCA 270; BC201109699 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.63] — v R; Skillin v R (2008) 51 MVR 572 .[5-s 22.5] Sumrein v R [2019] NSWCCA 83; BC201903096 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93G.30] Surman v SA Police (1996) 65 SASR 421; 23 MVR 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.35] Surujpaul v R [1958] 1 WLR 1050 . . . .[10-s 12.1]

Sutherland Shire Council v Benedict Industries Pty Ltd [2013] NSWLEC 121; BC201311573 .[2-s 247A.5], [2-s 247E.5] SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103; BC201310229 .[2-s 161.62] Swan v — [2016] NSWCCA 79; BC201603252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 4.1] Swann v Price (1986) 7 Petty Sessions Review 3481 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015], [10-s 12.1] Swansson v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 263 .[2-s 8.1], [7-100] SZ v — (2007) 168 A Crim R 249 . . . .[5-s 23.1] Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Fitzsimons (2007) 176 A Crim R 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Taikato v R (1996) 186 CLR 454; 139 ALR 386 . . . .[8-s 43.5], [8-s 43A.5], [8-s 417.1], [8-s 547D.10], [11-125.25] Tajjour v New South Wales (2014) 254 CLR 508; 313 ALR 221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 93X.10] Taleb v R [2015] NSWCCA 105; BC201504055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] Tam v DPP (Cth) (NSWSC, Harrison M, 11909/98, 21 October 1998, BC9805444) . . . . . . .[7-485] Tampion v Anderson (1973) 3 ALR 414; 48 ALJR 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5] Tan v R [2010] NSWCCA 207; BC201006992 .[5-s 61.1] Tannous v — (1989) 64 ALJR 141 . . . .[10-s 26.1] Tarrant v — [2018] NSWCCA 21; BC201800944 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 23A.5] Taylor v — [2009] NSWCCA 180; BC200912275 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v — (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599 . . . .[8-s 23A.10] Taysavang v — [2017] NSWCCA 146; BC201704912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Tazelaar v — [2009] NSWCCA 119; BC200903215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Tegge v Caldwell (1988) 15 NSWLR 226 . . . .[8-s 527C.20] Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247; BC201810350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 54B.5] Tez v Longley (2004) 142 A Crim R 122 .[2-s 84.1] Thomas v Bell (1989) 42 A Crim R 318 . . . . .[2-s 202.10] — v R (1960) 102 CLR 584; [1960] ALR 233 .[2-s 161.10] Thommeny v Humphries (NSWSC, Foster J, 19 June 1987, unreported) . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.20] Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1; 86 ALR 1 . .[2-s 13.1], [2-s 14.1], [7-160] — v — (1968) 117 CLR 313; [1968] ALR 432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 23.35] — v Vincent (2005) 153 A Crim R 577 .[21-s 4.1], [21-s 99.15] Thorneloe v Filipowski (2001) 52 NSWLR 60; 123 A Crim R 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.1]

References are to paragraph numbers

lxii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 44 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:41 bwpageid:: 62:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES Tien Hung Vu v R [2006] NSWCCA 188; BC200604589 . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 25.25] Tiknius v — [2011] NSWCCA 215; BC201107348 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Tillman v Attorney-General (NSW) (2007) 70 NSWLR 448; 178 A Crim R 133 . .[29-950.5] TJ v R (2009) 197 A Crim R 508 .[2-s 161.45], [2-s 294.5] TMTW v — [2008] NSWCCA 50; BC200801364 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Toalepai v — [2009] NSWCCA 270; BC200909849 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.45] Tonari v — [2013] NSWCCA 232; BC201313860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 16.1] Torrance v Cornish (1985) 79 FLR 87 . .[2-s 202.1] Towney v R [2018] NSWCCA 65; BC201802701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] Trainer v — (1906) 4 CLR 126; 13 ALR 53 . .[2-s 16.20] Tran v — [2018] NSWCCA 220; BC201809399 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 23A.10] Traveland v Doherty (1982) 41 ALR 563; 63 FLR 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 14.1] Trinh v R [2016] NSWCCA 110; BC201604512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[9-s 22.5] Trobridge v Hardy (1955) 94 CLR 147 .[21-s 99.5] Trujillo-Mesa v R [2010] NSWCCA 201; BC201006699 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Trumbich v Weston [1986] WAR 169 . .[8-s 117.15] Truong v R; R v Le, Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36; BC201300855 . . .[5-s 53A.5] TS v James [2014] NSWSC 984; BC201405753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-1535.5] Tsakonas v R [2009] NSWCCA 258; BC200909563 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] TT v — [2014] NSWCCA 206; BC201408396 .[8-s 24.30] Tucs v Manley (1985) 62 ALR 460 . .[8-s 527C.10] Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149; (1993) 17 Crim LJ 110 . . . . .[8-s 18.5], [8-s 23.3], [8-s 23A.1], [8-s 23A.10] Turnbull v — [2019] NSWCCA 97; BC201904236 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Turner v — [2017] NSWCCA 304; BC201710691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 91FB.1] Tye v Cmr of Police (1995) 84 A Crim R 147 .[21-s 49.5] Ugle v R (2002) 211 CLR 171; 189 ALR 22 . .[8-s 18.15] Underhill v Murden (2007) 173 A Crim R 336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-6180.1] United States Government v Atkinson [1969] 2 All ER 1151 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 193.5] Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; 87 ALR 633 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015] Valentine v Eid (1992) 27 NSWLR 615; 15 MVR 541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-005], [2-s 202.25]

Vallance v R (1961) 108 CLR 56; [1963] ALR 461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 58.5] Van den Hoek v — (1986) 161 CLR 158; 69 ALR 1; (1987) 61 ALJR 19 . .[2-s 161.30], [8-s 18.25] Van Leeuwen v — (1981) 55 ALJR 726; 36 ALR 591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.10] Van Tongeren v ODPP (Qld) [2013] QMC 16 . .[9-s 16A.10] Vaovasa v R (2007) 174 A Crim R 116 . .[5-s 55.1] Varley v — (1976) 12 ALR 347; 51 ALJR 243 .[2-s 160.1], [2-s 161.30] Veen v — (1979) 143 CLR 458; 23 ALR 281 . .[8-s 23A.5] — v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; 77 ALR 385 .[5-s 3A.1], [5-s 21.1], [5-s 21A.5], [5-s 33.5], [5-s 61.1], [8-s 23A.5] Velevski v R (2002) 187 ALR 233 . . . . . .[7-485] Vella v — (1990) 2 WAR 537; 47 A Crim R 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1], [7-475] Velmin v O’Connor (NSWSC, Carruthers J, 28 October 1991, unreported) . . . . . .[11-395.5] Veness v Hodge [2015] NSWCA 20; BC201500890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-6360.5] Verma v R (1987) 30 A Crim R 441 . . .[2-s 21.15], [2-s 23.5] Verrier v DPP [1967] 2 AC 195 . . . . .[2-cl 21.20] Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512; [1955] ALR 431 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 417A.1] Viro v R (1978) 141 CLR 88; 18 ALR 257 . . .[2-s 161.30] Visser v — [2011] NSWCCA 146; BC201104567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 22.5] Von Lieven v Stewart (1990) 21 NSWLR 52; 3 ACSR 118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 351B.10] Vougdis v R (1989) 41 A Crim R 125 . . .[5-s 33.1] W v — [2014] NSWCCA 110; BC201405596 .[2-s 133.1] Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 278 ALR 1; 85 ALJR 746 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wakefield v R [2010] NSWCCA 12; BC201000466 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 44.15] Wakeling v — [2016] NSWCCA 33; BC201601309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 66C.60] Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561; 75 ALR 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 10.1], [8-s 117.35] Walker v Bugden (2005) 155 A Crim R 416 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-1535.5] — v Walker [1967] 1 All ER 412; [1967] 1 WLR 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 190.1] — v West [1981] 2 NSWLR 570 . . . . .[21-s 49.5] Wallis v Lane [1964] VR 293 . . . . . .[8-s 117.20] Walsh v Sainsbury (1925) 36 CLR 464; [1925] ALR 343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 351B.5] — v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77; 139 ALR 27 . . . . . . . .[2-s 8.1], [2-s 16.25], [10-s 25.1] Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; 112 ALR 289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5]

References are to paragraph numbers

lxiii

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 45 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:42 bwpageid:: 63:: bwservice::0::

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020 — v Salmon (1992) 10 Petty SR 4530 .[8-s 195.10] WAP v R [2017] NSWCCA 212; BC201707089 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.5] Warby v — (2007) 171 A Crim R 575 . .[8-s 324.5] Ward v Marsh [1959] VR 26; [1958] ALR 724 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-125.15] Warner v Elder (NSWSC, Temby AJ, 23 April 1997, BC9703044) . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 48.30] — v Met Police Cmr [1969] 2 AC 256; 2 All ER 356 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 159.20], [10-s 10.30] Wasow v R (1985) 18 A Crim R 348 . . . .[7-505] Water Board v EPA (1994) 83 LGERA 174 . . .[2-s 14.1] Watson v A-G (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685; 28 A Crim R 332 . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [7-220] — v Watson (1970) 70 SR 203 . . . . . .[2-s 190.1] Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156; 64 ALR 195 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 44.5] Weaver v Bush (1798) 8 Term Rep 78 . .[8-s 58.30] Webb and Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41; 122 ALR 41 . . . . . . . . . . .[1-015], [2-s 21.15], [7-460] Weekes v Lahood (1992) 10 Petty SR 4501 . . .[8-s 58.55], [8-s 546C.15] — v — (NSWSC, Grove J, 11795 of 1992, 31 July 1002, BC9201717) .[21-s 99.20], [21-s 105.1] Wehebe v Voulgarakis (1991) 9 Petty Sessions Review 4363; (1991) 9 Petty SR 4363 . . .[2-s 11.1], [2-s 16.35] Weissensteiner v R (1993) 178 CLR 217; 117 ALR 545 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 161.35] Welham v DPP [1961] AC 103 . . . . .[2-cl 21.15] Wells v Hopwood (1832) 3 Barnewall and Adolphus 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 57.10] Weston v Cmr of Police, Qld [2004] 1 Qd R 103 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 10A.10], [8-s 10E.1] WGC v R (2007) 233 CLR 66; 241 ALR 199; 82 ALJR 220; 179 A Crim R 193 . . .[2-s 16.15] Whelan v — [2012] NSWCCA 147; BC201204946 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 52A.5] White v — (1989) 18 NSWLR 332; 46 A Crim R 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 293.1] — v — (1906) 4 CLR 152; 13 ALR 102 . . . .[8-s 319.5] — v — [2014] NSWCCA 329; BC201411148 .[10-s 25A.1] — v Ridley (1978) 140 CLR 342; 21 ALR 661 .[8-s 18.15], [8-s 351B.5] Whitehorn v R (1983) 152 CLR 657; 49 ALR 448 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 160.1], [7-485] Whittaker v Campbell [1983] 3 WLR 676 . . . .[8-s 154A.10] Whitten v Hall (1993) 29 NSWLR 680 . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 192.5] Wiggins v R [2010] NSWCCA 30; BC201000966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 24.1], [5-s 47.1] Wilcox v — [2011] NSWCCA 42 . . . .[8-s 97.20]

Wilde v NSW [2015] NSWCA 28; BC201500929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[29-960.5] Wilkins v R [2009] NSWCCA 222; BC200908931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 33.20] Williams v Douglas (1949) 78 CLR 521; [1950] ALR 223 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 7.1], [10-s 10.10] — v DPP(NSW) [2011] NSWSC 1085; BC201107318 . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 546C.15] — v Lewer [1974] 2 NSWLR 91 . . . .[5-s 10.10] — v Phillips (1957) 41 Cr App R 5 . .[8-s 117.10], [8-s 117.15] — v R (2012) 62 MVR 382 . .[7-410], [7-455], [8-s 52A.15] — v — (2006) 160 A Crim R 151 . . . . .[8-s 86.3] — v — (1978) 140 CLR 591; 22 ALR 195 . .[10-s 10.30] — v — [2010] NSWCCA 15; BC201000929 . .[5-s 21A.5] — v — [1982] WAR 277 . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525] — v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; 107 ALR 635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 19.5], [2-s 192.5] Williamson v DPP (Qld) [2001] 1 Qd R 99 . . .[9-s 19.10] Willmott v Attack [1976] 3 WLR 753 . .[8-s 58.50] Wills v Williams [1971] WAR 29 . . . .[11-125.25], [11-140.10] Wilson v DPP [2002] NSWSC 935; BC200206024 . . . . . . . . . . . . .[11-130.10], [21-s 99.5] — v DPP (NSW) [2017] NSWCA 128; BC201704276 . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 316.15], [8-s 580F.1] — v Kuhl [1979] VR 315 . . . . . . . .[11-230.10] Wiltshire v Barrett [1966] 1 QB 312; [1965] 2 All ER 271 .[8-s 546C.15], [21-s 99.20], [21-s 105.1], [21-s 231.1] Windle v R [2011] NSWCCA 277; BC201110827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] Winn v — [2007] NSWCCA 44; BC200700958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 60.15] Winner v — (1989) 39 A Crim R 180 . .[2-s 162.1] Withers v DPP [1974] 3 WLR 751 . . .[2-cl 21.15] Wong Kam-Ming v R [1980] AC 247; [1979] 1 All ER 939 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 31.1] Wong Pooh Yin v Public Prosecutor [1955] AC 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[8-s 417.1], [11-275.1] Wong v DPP (2005) 155 A Crim R 37 . .[2-s 207.1] — v R [2009] NSWCCA 101; BC200912274 . .[2-s 161.30] — v — (2001) 207 CLR 584; 185 ALR 233 . .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 37.1] Woodley v Boyd [2001] NSWCA 35; BC200100621 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[21-s 231.1] Woodroffe v NCA (1999) 168 ALR 585 . . . . .[2-s 222.25] Woods v DPP [2014] VSC 1; BC201400057 . .[9-s 16A.10], [9-s 19.10] Woodward v Wallace (NSWSC, 23 April 1985,

References are to paragraph numbers

lxiv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 46 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:43 bwpageid:: 64:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF CASES unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 3.20] Wooley v Fitzgerald [1969] Tas SR 65 . .[8-s 58.5] Woolworths Ltd v Waverley Council (1999) 103 LGERA 227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[1-020] Worcester v Smith [1951] VLR 316 . . .[11-125.20] WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Keenan) v Lucon (Aust) Pty Ltd (2002) 112 IR 332 .[2-s 179.1] Worsley v Aitken (1990) 9 Petty SR 4074 . . . .[5-s 10.10], [8-s 546C.10] WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165; BC201206782 .[8-s 52A.45] x (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, 11 June 1992, unreported) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 192.5] Xiao v R (2018) 329 FLR 1 .[5-s 22.5], [5-s 25A.5] Yager v — (1977) 139 CLR 28; 13 ALR 247 . .[2-s 161.25] Yenice v — (1994) 72 A Crim R 234 . . .[5-s 23.1] Young v Cmr for Railways (1962) 62 SR (NSW) 647 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[10-s 43.1]

— v Sprague [2015] NSWSC 1874; BC201512127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[2-s 177.5] Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323; BC201411203 . .[5-s 23.1] ZA v — [2018] NSWCCA 116; BC201804738 .[8-s 66EB.7], [8-s 66EB.10] Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433; [1963] ALR 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-525] Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11 . . .[8-s 58.5] Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645; 71 ALR 641 . . . .[8-s 18.25], [8-s 58.20], [8-s 418.1] Ziems v The Prothonotary (1957) 97 CLR 279; [1957] ALR 620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[7-485] Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234; 172 ALR 1 . .[2-s 161.62] Zwam v — [2017] NSWCCA 127; BC201704412 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[5-s 21A.10] ZZ v — [2013] NSWCCA 83; BC201301960 . .[5-s 21A.15]

References are to paragraph numbers

lxv

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 47 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:46 bwpageid:: 65:: bwservice::0::

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/prelim/consolidatedtableofcases_2019 Page: 48 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:29:46 bwpageid:: 66:: bwservice::0::

Proceedings Before Magistrates CONTENTS Paragraph

INTRODUCTION: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES The Local Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decisions of Supreme and District Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statutory reforms affecting the Local Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interest or bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Express and implied powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Local Court may give directions in circumstances not covered by rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INDICTABLE

OFFENCES: PROCEEDINGS MAGISTRATES

[1-001] [1-005] [1-007] [1-010] [1-015] [1-020] [1-025]

BEFORE

Commencement of prosecution Who may prosecute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indictable offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service of notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1-050] [1-055] [1-060] [1-065]

Procedure before committal proceedings Bail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary disposal of indictable offences by Local Courts . . . . Other indictable offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017 amendments concerning committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . Paper committal procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attendance of witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subpoenas to give evidence or produce documents . . . . . . . . . . . . Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders . . . . Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1-100] [1-105] [1-120] [1-125] [1-127] [1-130] [1-140] [1-145] [1-150] [1-155]

Committal proceedings Committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures in committal proceedings generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prosecution case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 62 initial determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 3 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 1:: bwservice::0::

[1-200] [1-205] [1-210] [1-215]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Paragraph

The defence case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The section 64 decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Committal for sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting aside ex parte order of committal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal to Court of Criminal Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supreme Court appeal and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Court appeal and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Court appeal and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY

OFFENCES: PROCEEDINGS MAGISTRATES

[1-220] [1-225] [1-230] [1-240] [1-245] [1-250] [1-260] [1-265] [1-270]

BEFORE

Commencement of prosecution Who may prosecute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service of notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1-275] [1-280] [1-285] [1-290]

Procedure before summary hearing Bail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accused person suffering from mental illness or condition . . . . Subpoenas to give evidence and produce documents . . . . . . . . . . Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders . . . . Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indictable offences punishable summarily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1-350] [1-355] [1-360] [1-365] [1-370] [1-375] [1-380]

Summary offences Written plea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ex parte proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Briefs of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure of prosecutor or accused person to appear . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joint hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The prosecution case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re-opening prosecution case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No case to answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The defence case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case in reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decision of magistrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 4 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 2:: bwservice::0::

[1-425] [1-430] [1-435] [1-440] [1-445] [1-450] [1-455] [1-460] [1-465] [1-470] [1-475] [1-480] [1-485] [1-490]

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

Paragraph

Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review by Local Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 5 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 3:: bwservice::0::

[1-495] [1-500] [1-510]

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 6 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 4:: bwservice::0::

Proceedings Before Magistrates INTRODUCTION: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES [1-001] The Local Court The Local Court of New South Wales is constituted under the provisions of Pt 2 of the Local Court Act 2007: see [29-55,075] and following. Magistrates are appointed under Div 2 of Pt 2 of that Act: see [29-55,115] and following. As to the history of the magistracy in NSW, see R v Longshaw (1990) 20 NSWLR 554; (1990) 50 A Crim R 401; North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service Inc v Bradley (2004) 218 CLR 146; 206 ALR 315; [2004] HCA 31; BC200403588 at [4], [37], [44] and H Golder, High and responsible offıce: a history of the NSW magistracy, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 1991. For a history of the criminal jurisdiction of the Courts of Petty Sessions up to 1966, see J M Smail, Justices Act 1902–1966, Butterworths, Sydney, 1966, pp 113–17. For a history of the civil jurisdiction of the present Local Court and its predecessors, see Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure NSW, LexisNexis Butterworths, looseleaf, at [20,000].

[1-005] Decisions of Supreme and District Courts A magistrate is bound to follow a decision of the Supreme Court or a court above that is in the judicial hierarchy: Fleming v White [1981] 2 NSWLR 719 at 725–6; (1981) 7 A Crim R 448. A magistrate is not bound to follow a decision of the District Court although such a decision would be, except on rare occasions, “compellingly persuasive”: Valentine v Eid (1992) 27 NSWLR 615; 15 MVR 541. The importance of a magistrate following binding precedent of the Supreme Court was stressed in Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Wililo [2012] NSWSC 713; BC201204764; 19(7) Crim LN [3088] where it was noted that a particular magistrate had repeatedly erred in a fundamental way in the conduct of summary criminal prosecutions despite there being a number of successful appeals against her decisions in the Supreme Court.

[1-007] Statutory reforms affecting the Local Court The Justices Act 1902 was repealed with effect from 7 July 2003. The following Acts commenced on that day: (a) the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Justices and Local Courts) Act 2001; (b) the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001; (c) the Justices Legislations Repeal and Amendment Act 2001; (d) the Justices of the Peace Act 2002. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Justices and Local Courts) Act 2001 enacted a comprehensive statutory regime in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, at Guidecard 2, providing for summary criminal proceedings, committal proceedings and a range of ancillary provisions.

5

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 7 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 5:: bwservice::0::

[1-007]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

The Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at Guidecard 4 provides for applications to the Local Court for annulment of convictions and sentences and appeals to the Supreme Court, Land and Environment Court and District Court against conviction, sentence and, in limited circumstances, acquittal in the Local Court. The Local Court Act 2007 commenced on 1 July 2009 with the repeal of the Local Courts Act 1982.

[1-010] Jurisdiction The Local Court has civil, special and criminal jurisdictions: s 9 Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,085]. The Local Court, wherever sitting, has jurisdiction throughout the whole of NSW: s 11 Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,095]. As to geographical jurisdiction, see ss 10A–10E Crimes Act at [8-s 10A] and following. As to ouster of jurisdiction of the Local Court where a question of rights over land is concerned, see Barns v Edwards (1993) 31 NSWLR 714; 68 A Crim R 140 and s 273 Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 273]. For jurisdiction of state courts with respect to federal offences, see Pt X of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) at [20-15,800] and following.

[1-015] Interest or bias A judge or magistrate should not hear and determine proceedings if affected by actual bias, or if there is a reasonable apprehension that the judge or magistrate is not impartial and unprejudiced. Where, in the absence of any suggestion of actual bias, a question arises as to the independence or impartiality of a judge (or other judicial officer or a juror), the governing principle is that, subject to qualifications relating to waiver or necessity, a judge is disqualified if a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question that the judge is required to decide: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; 176 ALR 644; [2000] HCA 63; BC200007446 at [6]; Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488; 174 ALR 655; [2000] HCA 48; BC200005268; Webb and Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41; 122 ALR 41; British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; 273 ALR 429; [2011] HCA 2; BC201100308 at [139], [146]–[152]. Deciding whether a judicial officer or juror might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of a question that has not been determined requires no prediction about how the judge or juror will in fact approach the matter. The question is one of possibility (real and not remote), not probability: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy, above, at [7]. The duty of a judge to disqualify him or herself for proper reason is matched by an equal duty not to disqualify except for proper reason: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy, above, at [19]–[20]; Raybos Australia Pty Ltd v Tectran Corp Pty Ltd (1986) 6 NSWLR 272; BC8600683, although in a case of real doubt, it will often be prudent for a judge to decide not to sit in order to avoid the inconvenience that could result if an appellate court were to take a different view: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy, above, at [20]–[21]. The circumstance that a judge has a not insubstantial, direct, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the outcome of litigation will ordinarily result in disqualification: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy, above, at [58].

6

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 8 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:7 bwpageid:: 6:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-020]

As a matter of prudence and professional practice, judges should disclose interests and associations if there is a serious possibility that they are potentially disqualifying: Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy, above, at [69]. Reasonable apprehension of bias was demonstrated where members of a court had heard an earlier case involving the same issues and a common witness and had made findings as to credit: Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288; 47 ALR 45, and where a magistrate had convicted a defendant upon one information and proceeded to hear a further information against the same defendant where the subject matter of the second information was inextricably interwoven with the first: Swann v Price (1986) 7 Petty Sessions Review 3481 at 3484–5, and where the magistrate had disbelieved the defendant at the first hearing: Hosler v Maughan (1989) 40 A Crim R 281 at 283; BC8902279. Where reasonable apprehension of bias is said to arise by way of prejudgment, it is necessary to consider the nature and strength of any previous findings which are relied upon in support of the application and in particular whether the findings concern the credibility of a witness or witnesses: British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283; 273 ALR 429; [2011] HCA 2; BC201100308 at [139]–[145]; Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (2011) 244 CLR 427; 86 ALJR 14; [2011] HCA 48; BC201109206 at [31]–[33], [67]–[73]. The hypothetical observer will have in mind the fact that judges are equipped by training, experience and their oath or affirmation to decide factual contests solely on the material that is in evidence in the particular case: British American Tobacco Services Ltd v Laurie at [140]. When a party is in a position to object but takes no step to do so, that party cannot be heard to complain later that the judge was biased: Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568; 87 ALR 633; BC8902709. However, a party cannot effectively waive a right without being aware of the facts giving rise to the right: Carver v Law Society of New South Wales (1998) 43 NSWLR 71; BC9800186 at [36]. The rule of necessity permits a member of a court who has some interest in the subject matter of the litigation to sit in a case where no judge without such an interest is available to sit: Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 71 at 88–9, 96–8; 93 ALR 435 at 448, 454; BC9002913; Ebner v Offıcial Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; 176 ALR 644; [2000] HCA 63; BC200007446 at [64]–[65]. The relevant principles concerning apprehended bias were considered in Gaudie v Local Court of NSW [2013] NSWSC 1425; BC201313230, in the context of a disqualification application arising from statements made by a magistrate in a letter to a newspaper and a subsequent interview with a journalist.

[1-020] Express and implied powers The Local Court is a statutory court of record: s 7(1) Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,075]. It is an inferior court with a limited jurisdiction which arises expressly under statute or is derived by implication from statutory provisions conferring particular jurisdiction: Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1; 87 ALR 618; BC8902704 at CLR 16–17. The Local Court has no inherent jurisdiction: Grassby v R, above. An implied power may be found where a court has jurisdiction under statute but no provision is made in the statute for the making of an order “which is necessary to carry [the court’s] statutory powers into effect”: R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735; (1992) 65 A Crim R 452; BC9203074 at NSWLR 739. In hearing and determining the proceedings under the court’s statutory jurisdiction, it may do that which is “really necessary to secure the

7

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 9 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:8 bwpageid:: 7:: bwservice::0::

[1-020]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

proper administration of justice in the proceeding before it”: John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of NSW (1991) 26 NSWLR 131; 59 A Crim R 68 at NSWLR 160. The term “necessary” does not mean “essential” but rather “subjected to the touchstone of reasonableness”; it is to be understood as identifying a power to make orders which are reasonably required or legally ancillary to the accomplishment of statutory powers: Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435; 162 ALR 336; [1999] HCA 19; BC9902072 at ALR 348. Since Grassby v R, above, implied powers have been held to exist with respect to an inferior court of record in Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16 at NSWLR 671 (particulars, amendment and election in the Local Court), John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of NSW, above, (pseudonym orders in extortion cases in the Local Court), Lay v Cleary (NSWSC, James J, 14202/1992, 23 February 1993, unreported, BC9303691); Director-General of Fair Trading v O’Shane (NSWSC, Graham AJ, 10578/1996, 22 August 1997, unreported, BC9703791); (leave to withdraw information in Local Court); Hartingdon v Director-General of Department of Community Services (1993) 17 Fam LR 126; BC9302279 (NSWSC, Levine J) (leave to withdraw care proceedings in Children’s Court); Director of Public Prosecutions v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129; 102 A Crim R 180; BC9802628; (1998) 5 Crim LN 39 [854] (power of Local Court to order permanent stay of summary prosecution as an abuse of process) and R v Webster (1998) 43 NSWLR 256; 100 A Crim R 26; BC9800565; (1998) 5 Crim LN 10 [808] (power of Local Court to issue bench warrant for the arrest of a periodic detainee on the non-appearance of a detainee on a cancellation application of a periodic detention order and on the Department of Corrective Services establishing a prima facie case). Implied powers have been held not to exist with respect to an inferior court of record in R v Mosely, above costs in criminal proceedings in District Court); Director of Public Prosecutions v Deeks (1994) 34 NSWLR 523; 74 A Crim R 85; BC9404935 at NSWLR 531–3 (costs application under Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 in District Court); Director of Public Prosecutions v Boykin (NSWSC, Wood J, 10204/1994, 21 June 1994, unreported, BC9405141) (costs where Local Court orders permanent stay of summary prosecution); Woolworths Ltd v Waverley Council (1999) 103 LGERA 227; [1999] NSWSC 308; BC9901833 (costs of appeal to Local Court under Impounding Act 1993); John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v District Court of NSW (2004) 61 NSWLR 344; 50 ACSR 380; [2004] NSWCA 324; BC200406122; (2004) 11 Crim LN 96 [1772] (non-publication order with respect to verdict following District Court trial). As to the incidental power of the Local Court to set aside orders in civil proceedings as an incident of its function as a court of justice, see Hoskins v van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290; BC9801033.

[1-025] Local Court may give directions in circumstances not covered by rules In relation to particular proceedings, the Local Court may give directions with respect to any aspect of practice and procedure not provided for by or under the Local Court Act 2007, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Civil Procedure Act 2005 or any other Act: s 28 Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,255]. Anything done in accordance with such a direction (including the commencing of proceedings and the taking of any step in proceedings) is taken to have been validly done: s 28(2) at [29-55,255].

8

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 10 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:8 bwpageid:: 8:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-060]

INDICTABLE OFFENCES: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION [1-050] Who may prosecute A prosecution or proceeding in respect of any offence under an Act may be instituted by any person unless the right to institute the prosecution or proceeding is expressly conferred by that Act on a specified person or class of persons: s 14, Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 14]. Committal proceedings, as defined at [2-s 3], are commenced on the date on which a court attendance notice is filed at a Local Court: [2-s 47]. As to the commencement of a public prosecution see [2-s 48]; and a private prosecution see [2-s 49]. See [2-s 50] for the requirements of a valid court attendance notice. Certain offences may only be prosecuted with the consent of the Attorney General or some other designated public official and some of these offences may be prosecuted with the consent of the NSW DPP: s 11, Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 at [29-10,245]. The NSW DPP may institute or take over the prosecution of an indictable offence: ss 8 and 9 Director of Public Prosecutions Act at [29-10,230] and [29-10,235]. See paragraph 4 of the Prosecution Guidelines for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW at [28-25,020] for criteria to be taken into account in a decision to prosecute. See paragraph 6 of those Guidelines at [28-25,030] concerning charge selection and paragraph 8 at [28-25,040] concerning election for offences to be dealt with on indictment. See paragraph 20 of those Guidelines at [28-25,100] concerning charge negotiation and agreement, agreed statements of facts and Form 1 offences.

[1-055] Indictable offences An offence must be dealt with on indictment unless it is an offence that under any Act is permitted or required to be dealt with summarily: s 5(1) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 5]. An offence may be dealt with on indictment if it is an offence that under any Act is permitted to be dealt with summarily or on indictment: s 5(2) at [2-s 5]. Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 6] provides for offences which must or may be dealt with summarily. The expression “required to be dealt with on indictment” in s 6(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 6] should be treated as being subject to s 260 of that Act: R v Fisher (2002) 54 NSWLR 467; [2002] NSWCCA 188; BC200202699; (2002) 9 Crim LN 39 [1430]; Anson v DPP (2002) 129 A Crim R 328; [2002] NSWSC 408; BC200202513.

[1-060] The court attendance notice The Local Court is given jurisdiction with respect to an alleged indictable offence by the filing of a court attendance notice alleging the offence pursuant to ss 47–9 at [2-s 47]–[2-s 49]. For the requirements of a valid court attendance notice, see [2-s 11], [2-s 16], [2-s 50]. Generally speaking, there is no time limit for commencing a prosecution for an indictable offence.

9

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 11 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:8 bwpageid:: 9:: bwservice::0::

[1-065]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

[1-065] Service of notice When a court attendance notice alleging an indictable offence has been issued, the notice ought be filed and served on the accused person: [2-s 52].

PROCEDURE BEFORE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS [1-100] Bail Where a person is charged with an indictable offence, bail may be granted by police under s 44 of the Bail Act 2013 at [9-s 44]ff. Bail may be granted by the Local Court under s 48 of the Bail Act 2013 at [9-s 48]ff.

[1-105] Adjournment The court has power to grant or refuse adjournments at any time during the proceedings: [2-s 40]. The power to adjourn is discretionary but ought not be exercised so as to work a manifest injustice to one of the parties: see authorities at [2-s 40.1] and [2-s 190.1]. See [2-s 40] for adjournment where there is a variance between the process and the evidence and the accused person has been misled by the variance. See also [2-s 118] for the power to order costs on adjournment by reason of the unreasonable conduct or delay of a party. Proceedings caught by the Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Act 1985 may also be adjourned to allow compliance with that Act: see s 9 and following at [29-65,165].

[1-120] Summary disposal of indictable offences by Local Courts See [2-s 5]–[2-s 6] as to indictable and summary offences. Sections 258–273 of the Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 258] and following operate with respect to summary disposal of indictable offences by Local Courts. See generally R v Bartalesi (1997) 41 NSWLR 641; 93 A Crim R 274; BC9702655; (1997) 4(6) Crim LN 44 [709]. Indictable offences listed in Table 1 of Sch 1 of that Act at [2-Sch 1] are to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecutor or person charged elects otherwise: s 260(1) Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 260]. Indictable offences listed in Table 2 of Sch 1 of that Act at [2-Sch 1] are to be dealt with summarily unless the prosecutor elects otherwise: s 260(2) Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 260]. The magistrate is not called upon to exercise any discretion. All offences listed in Tables 1 and 2 will be dealt with summarily unless the relevant election is made. Where no election is made, the matter is to be determined summarily: s 261 Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 261]. Where an election is made, the matter proceeds by way of committal proceedings: s 262 Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 262]. Provision is made for the time to make an election and withdrawal of an election: [2-s 263]–[2-s 264]. Provision is made for certain information to be given to a person charged with a Table 1 offence including provision of a statement of the person’s right to make an election and its consequences and service of the prosecution brief and the person’s criminal record (if any): [2-s 265]. Section 267 at [2-s 267] provides for maximum penalties for Table 1 offences which are dealt with summarily. Section 268 at [2-s 268] provides for maximum penalties for Table 2 offences which are dealt with summarily. Nothing in Div 3 of Pt 2 of the Act confers jurisdiction on a Local Court to deal with an offence if the Children’s Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter: [2-s 269]. The time limits contained at [2-s 179] or any other Act do not apply to offences dealt with summarily: s 179(2)(b) at [2-s 179].

10

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 12 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:9 bwpageid:: 10:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-140]

See paragraph 8 of the Prosecution Guidelines of the NSW DPP at [28-25,040] concerning election for offences to be dealt with on indictment.

[1-125] Other indictable offences Prosecutions for all indictable offences other than those nominated in Tables 1 and 2 in Sch 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act proceed by way of committal proceedings only.

[1-127] 2017 amendments concerning committal proceedings Major changes were made concerning committal proceedings by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 which commenced on 30 April 2018. The new provisions abolish the substantive committal decision so that magistrates will no longer be required to consider the evidence and determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that a properly instructed jury would convict the accused person of the offence. Instead, the magistrate will need to be satisfied that the new steps certifying the charges and holding a case conference have been completed before committing the matter to a higher court for trial or sentence. With respect to proceedings commenced on or after that day, the new system of committal proceedings is contained in s 55 and following of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 55]ff. The amendments are explained generally at [2-s 55.1]–[2-s 55.10]. With respect to proceeding commenced before 30 April 2018, the pre-existing provisions continue to apply so that the annotations at [1-130], [1-140] and [1-200]–[1-225] remain relevant to that class of case. The removed provisions (ss 55–108 Criminal Procedure Act 1986) have been retained temporarily at [REP 2-s 55]–[REP 2-s 108] and following for the convenience of subscribers.

[1-130] Paper committal procedures Section 74 at [REP 2-s 74] and following establishes a mandatory procedure for service of statements of prosecution witnesses upon the accused person. As to the contents of statements, see [REP 2-s 79] and following. Section 89 at [REP 2-s 89] requires information as to the rights of the accused person to be served in addition to written statements and this requirement is mandatory: Adamiczka v R (1993) 33 NSWLR 68 at 74E, 76G; 71 A Crim R 291; BC9303906. Section 76 at [REP 2-s 76] provides for special requirements as to transcripts of recordings of interviews with children. The prosecution is directed by the court to serve statements under [REP 2-s 75] within a specified period and the accused person is allowed a further specified period to indicate whether he or she desires the attendance at the committal proceedings of the persons who made statements.

[1-140] Attendance of witnesses Section 91 at [REP 2-s 91] provides that, on the application of the accused person or the prosecutor or on the court’s own motion, the magistrate may direct the attendance of a prosecution witness who has made a statement. Such a direction must be given if one party applies for it and the other party consents: s 91(2). In the case of a witness who is the alleged victim of an offence involving violence, such a direction may only be given if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are special reasons why, in the interests of

11

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 13 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:9 bwpageid:: 11:: bwservice::0::

[1-140]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

justice, the witness should attend to give oral evidence: [REP 2-s 93]. In the case of any other witness, such a direction may only be given if the magistrate is of the opinion that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should attend to give oral evidence: s 91(3) at [REP 2-s 91]. Evidence not complying with the paper committal procedures may be allowed in certain circumstances: [REP 2-s 90].

[1-145] Subpoenas to give evidence or produce documents The provisions in ss 220–232 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 relating to the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence apply to committal proceedings: s 59(b) at [REP 2-s 59]. See annotations at [2-s 222] and following.

[1-150] Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders Subject to any Act or other law, s 56 at [REP 2-s 56] provides that committal proceedings shall take place in open court. The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 at [29-9001] and following creates a statutory power for courts, including the Local Court and Children’s Court, to make suppression orders and non-publication orders. See [REP 2-s 56.1] and [REP 2-s 56.5] for powers of the Local Court to close the court or make associated orders with respect to committal proceedings.

[1-155] Children The Children’s Court has jurisdiction to hear, inter alia, committal proceedings in respect of any indictable offence where the offence is alleged to have been committed by a child (a person under 18 years) when the offence was committed and the person is under 21 years when charged before the Children’s Court: s 28(1)(b) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 at [16-15,460]. See ss 27 and 31 at [16-15,455] and [16-15,525] concerning committal proceedings in the Children’s Court. The prosecution of a child charged with a “serious indictable offence” must proceed by way of committal proceedings and cannot be heard and determined summarily in the Children’s Court: ss 3(1) and 28(1) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act at [16-15,010] and [16-15,460].

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS [1-200] Committal proceedings The hearing of committal proceedings is an administrative and not a judicial function although the person conducting them must act judicially: see [REP 2-s 57.1] and, in particular, Ex parte Cousens; Re Blacket (1946) 47 SR (NSW) 145 at 147–8; 63 WN (NSW) 228; Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1; 87 ALR 618; BC8902704 at CLR 11, 15; Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 83–4; 21 ALR 505; R v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR 596 at 616; 61 ALR 139. The purpose of committal proceedings is to examine and permit the testing of the evidence led by the prosecution to see whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the accused being put on trial and they are not conducted merely to aid the preparation of the defence case: see [REP 2-s 57.1] and, in particular, Moss v Brown [1979] 1 NSWLR 114; R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337 at 340; BC8902533.

[1-205] Procedures in committal proceedings generally Committal proceedings shall be conducted in the presence of the accused person unless that person is to be represented and applies to be excused or, in certain

12

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 14 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:9 bwpageid:: 12:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-225]

circumstances, where the accused person fails to appear: [REP 2-s 71]–[REP 2-s 73]. In respect of state offences, if a question arises as to the defendant’s fitness to plead, the committal proceedings continue as usual and the question of fitness is dealt with in the trial court: Pioch v Lauder (1976) 13 ALR 266; 27 FLR 79 at 85. Section 31(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 at [17-2350] provides that Pt 3 of that Act does not apply to committal proceedings.

[1-210] The prosecution case There is no obligation on the prosecution at committal proceedings to call every witness upon whom it wishes to rely at trial but the discretion should not be exercised for tactical reasons: see [REP 2-s 59.15]. As to the use of interpreters, see [REP 2-s 59.10]. The magistrate may terminate the examination or cross examination of a witness on any particular matter if satisfied that any further examination or cross examination on the matter will not help the magistrate to make the initial determination under s 62 or a decision under s 64: [REP 2-s 69]. The magistrate must not exclude evidence on any of the discretionary grounds set out in s 90 or Pt 3.11 of Evidence Act 1995: [REP 2-s 70]. The evidence adduced in committal proceedings should be admissible under the normal rules of evidence: Lloyd v Bibbin [1962] VR 593 at 594. The Evidence Act 1995 at [3-s 1] and following makes extensive provision with respect to adducing evidence, admissibility of evidence, proof and other related matters.

[1-215] Section 62 initial determination After all the evidence of the prosecution has been presented, the magistrate must consider whether he or she is of the opinion that, having regard to all the evidence before him or her, the evidence is capable of satisfying a jury properly instructed, beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person has committed an indictable offence: [REP 2-s 62]. If not of this opinion, the accused person should be discharged: s 62(2). If the magistrate is of that opinion, he or she should proceed in accordance with s 63. As to the nature of the opinion under s 62, see [REP 2-s 62.5].

[1-220] The defence case If the magistrate is of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is capable of satisfying a reasonable jury, properly instructed, beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person committed an indictable offence, the magistrate must give the accused person an opportunity to answer the charge and a warning in the form prescribed by the rules and proceed to take any statement by or any evidence adduced by the accused person: [REP 2-s 63]. The accused person is entitled to give evidence and call witnesses: [REP 2-s 97].

[1-225] The section 64 decision When all the prosecution and defence evidence has been taken, the magistrate must consider whether he or she is of the opinion that, on the basis of all the evidence before him, there is a reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury properly instructed would convict the accused person of an indictable offence: [REP 2-s 64]. If he or she is of this opinion, the accused person should be committed for trial: s 65(1). If he or she is not of this opinion, the accused person should be discharged: [REP 2-s 66]. As to the nature of the opinion under s 64, see [REP 2-s 65.1]. The accused person should be committed for trial on a specific charge or charges and where the magistrate finds evidence sufficient to

13

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 15 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:9 bwpageid:: 13:: bwservice::0::

[1-225]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

support a charge other than that with which the accused person was originally before the court, he or she should recharge the accused person: Kolalich v DPP (1991) 173 CLR 222; 103 ALR 630; BC9102610 at CLR 255–7. The magistrate cannot commit for an offence in respect of which consent by a person is required before a prosecution can be commenced: R v Bacon [1973] 1 NSWLR 87 at 95. See, generally, Procedures for Hearings on Indictment at [7-001] and following for procedures in the Supreme and District Court following committal for trial.

[1-230] Costs Where an accused person is discharged, the matter is withdrawn or he or she is committed for trial or sentence for an indictable offence which is not the same as the indictable offence the subject of the court attendance notice, the court has power to order the prosecutor to pay the accused person’s costs: [2-s 116]. Section 117 restricts the circumstances under which costs may be ordered against a public informant. In cases brought by an informant acting in a private capacity, the court has a broad discretion to order costs, see [2-s 117.10]. A magistrate may grant a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 to an accused person who is discharged at committal proceedings. See Allerton v DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 550 at 555–6; 53 A Crim R 33. Section 118 at [2-s 118] empowers the Local Court to order one party to pay to the other party additional costs incurred by reason of the unreasonable conduct or delay of the offending party.

[1-240] Committal for sentence Where an accused person pleads guilty to an indictable offence and the plea is accepted by the magistrate and summary jurisdiction is not available or is not availed of, the accused person is committed for sentence to the Supreme or District Court: [2-s 99]–[2-s 102]. The magistrate is entitled to reject the plea and should do so where the offence does not appear to be made out by the evidence: ss 100–1 and Frodsham v O’Gorman [1979] 1 NSWLR 683. See [2-s 104] as to referral back by the Supreme or District Courts of committal proceedings to the Local Court. See [5-001] and following for sentencing procedure and practice.

[1-245] Setting aside ex parte order of committal Where an accused person has been committed for trial in his or her absence, a magistrate may set aside the order of committal and any warrant of commitment issued thereon if, upon application by the accused person made before presentation or filing of an indictment, good and proper reason is shown for his or her absence and the magistrate is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so: [2-s 67].

[1-250] Appeal to Court of Criminal Appeal Section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 at [20-265] provides for appeal against an interlocutory judgment or order in committal proceedings: see [20-265.1] and Attorney-General (NSW) v Stuart (1994) 34 NSWLR 667; 75 A Crim R 8; BC9405113. A person may not seek leave to appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 against a decision of a Local Court that has been the subject of an appeal or application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal: [4-s 60]. A person may not appeal under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against any interlocutory order if the person has instituted an appeal

14

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 16 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:9 bwpageid:: 14:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-275]

against the interlocutory judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Pt 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001: s 5F(7) Criminal Appeal Act at [20-265].

[1-260] Supreme Court appeal and review Section 53(3)(a) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 53] enables any person to appeal to the Supreme Court against any order made in relation to the person in any committal proceedings, on a question of law alone, but only with the leave of the Supreme Court. A person may not seek leave to appeal under that Act against a decision of a Local Court that has been the subject of an appeal or application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal: [4-s 60]. A person may not appeal under s 5F Criminal Appeal Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against any interlocutory order if the person has instituted an appeal against that order to the Supreme Court under Pt 5 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001: s 5F(7) Criminal Appeal Act at [20-265]. Declaratory relief and mandamus under ss 65, 69 and 75 of the Supreme Court Act remain available. See [20-20,575], [20-20,585] and [20-20,610] and the authorities referred to in those paragraphs. See the authorities at [2-s.65.15](e) concerning the reluctance of the Supreme Court to intervene with respect to committal proceedings.

[1-265] District Court appeal and review Section 23(2) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 23] enables a prosecutor to appeal against a cost order made under ss 116–18 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 116]–[2-s 118] in respect of committal proceedings.

[1-270] Federal Court appeal and review A magistrate’s decision in a committal proceeding whilst exercising federal jurisdiction is reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth): Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533; 76 FLR 296; 5 ALD 446.

SUMMARY OFFENCES: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES COMMENCEMENT OF PROSECUTION [1-275] Who may prosecute See [1-050]. Where the DPP has taken over a summary prosecution under ss 9 and 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the original prosecutor is subsumed in the DPP and the DPP may not thereafter commence proceedings (eg, by way of appeal) in the name of the original prosecutor but must do so as the DPP: Price v Ferris (1994) 34 NSWLR 704; 74 A Crim R 127; BC9404940. If a prosecution or proceeding that has been taken over by the DPP under s 9 is remitted to the Local Court, the DPP may hand the matter back to the original prosecutor: s 9A Director of Public Prosecutions Act at [29-10,238].

15

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 17 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:10 bwpageid:: 15:: bwservice::0::

[1-280]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

[1-280] Summary offences Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 6] provides for offences which must or may be dealt with summarily. The expression “required to be dealt with on indictment” in s 6(1)(c) Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 6] should be treated as being subject to s 260 of that Act: R v Fisher (2002) 54 NSWLR 467; [2002] NSWCCA 188; BC200202699; (2002) 9 Crim LN 39 [1430]; Anson v DPP (2002) 129 A Crim R 328; [2002] NSWSC 408; BC200202513.

[1-285] The court attendance notice The Local Court is given jurisdiction with respect to an alleged summary offence by the filing of a court attendance notice: [2-s 178]. As to the requirements of a court attendance notice, see [2-s 175.1]. See [2-s 179] for the limitation period for commencing a summary prosecution. See [2-s 173] for commencement of a public prosecution and [2-s 174] for commencement of a summary prosecution. See s 45 of the Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,505] for proceedings commenced by application in the special jurisdiction of that court.

[1-290] Service of notice See [2-s 177] concerning service of a court attendance notice.

PROCEDURE BEFORE SUMMARY HEARING [1-350] Bail See [1-100] and the Bail Act 2013 at [9-s 1] and following.

[1-355] Adjournment The court has power to grant or refuse adjournments: [2-s 40]. The power to adjourn is discretionary but ought not to be exercised so as to work a manifest injustice to one of the parties: see [2-s 40.1] and [2-s 190.1]. See [2-s 40] for adjournment where there is a variance between the process and the evidence and the accused person has been misled by the variance. See also [2-s 216] for the power to order costs on adjournment by reason of the unreasonable conduct or delay of a party. See s 187(4) at [2-s 187] as to adjournment where the prosecutor has not served the brief of evidence in accordance with the Act.

[1-360] Accused person suffering from mental illness or condition Part 3 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 at [17-2350] and following makes provision for magistrates to make orders of a diversionary type where an accused person is charged with a summary offence. Section 33 at [17-2360] applies where the accused person appears to be “mentally ill” within the Mental Health Act 2007. Section 32 at [17-2355] applies where the accused person appears to be developmentally disabled or to be suffering from a mental illness or condition but not to be “mentally ill”.

[1-365] Subpoenas to give evidence and produce documents See [2-s 222]–[2-s 232] generally as to subpoenas in criminal proceedings in the Local Court.

16

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 18 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:10 bwpageid:: 16:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-435]

[1-370] Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders Subject to any Act or other law, s 191 at [2-s 191] provides that summary proceedings are to be heard in open court. The Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 at [29-9001] and following creates a statutory power for courts, including the Local Court and Children’s Court, to make suppression orders and non-publication orders. See [2-s 56.1] and [2-s 56.5] for powers of the Local Court to close the court or make associated orders with respect to summary proceedings.

[1-375] Children The Children’s Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine by way of summary hearing proceedings in respect of all summary and indictable offences except “serious indictable offences”: see ss 3 and 28(1), Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 at [16-15,010] and [16-15,460]. For circumstances in which the Children’s Court may decline to hear and determine an indictable offence summarily and will commit for trial, see s 31 at [16-15,525]. As to procedure for summary hearings in the Children’s Court, see s 4 and following at [16-15,125]. Generally, the procedures for hearing matters are those which apply for the hearing of matters in the Local Court: s 27 at [16-15,455].

[1-380] Indictable offences punishable summarily See [1-120] for indictable offences which are to be dealt with summarily, in the absence of election to the contrary, pursuant to s 260 Criminal Procedure Act at [2-s 260].

SUMMARY OFFENCES [1-425] Written plea An accused person who is issued a court attendance notice may lodge a written plea of guilty or not guilty in the prescribed form with the clerk of the Local Court: s 182(1) at [2-s 182]. If a guilty plea is indicated, the notice may be accompanied by additional written material in mitigation of the offence: s 182(2). Where written notice of the plea is received not later than 7 days before the return date, the defendant is not required to attend: s 182(3).

[1-430] Ex parte proceedings Where an accused person does not appear and has not notified a plea of not guilty under s 182, the magistrate may proceed to hear the matter in accordance with ss 190(3), 196, 197. Sections 199–200 at [2-s 199]–[2-s 200] provide for the material to be considered by the court in ex parte proceedings. The provisions of s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 at [5-s 10] apply to ex parte proceedings: [2-s 209].

[1-435] Briefs of evidence If an accused person pleads not guilty to a summary offence, the prosecutor must, unless the court otherwise orders, serve on the accused person a copy of the brief of evidence relating to the offence: [2-s 183].

17

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 19 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:10 bwpageid:: 17:: bwservice::0::

[1-435]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

The brief of evidence is to be served on the accused person at least 14 days before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution unless the accused person consents or the court orders otherwise: s 183(3) and (4) at [2-s 183]. See [2-s 183] and following and annotations at [2-s 183.5]–[2-s 188.1]. As to case management of criminal proceedings in the Local Court, see annotations at [2-s 134.20] and Local Court Practice Note Crim 1 at [28-15,205].

[1-440] Hearing Where both parties appear, the magistrate shall proceed to hear the case: [2-s 192]. Where the accused person appears at the hearing, the substance of the offence shall be stated and he or she shall be asked if he or she pleads guilty or not guilty: s 192(2). The court may decide not to accept the plea of guilty: see ss 193–4 and cases at [2-s 193.1]. A plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of the offence charged. The court has a discretion whether to allow the accused person to change his plea: see [2-s 207.1] and Stanton v Dawson (1987) 31 A Crim R 104; BC8701057. The accused person can plead not guilty generally or enter a special plea on the basis that the court is without jurisdiction, or he has been pardoned for the offence, or a plea in bar on the basis that the accused person has previously been convicted or acquitted of the offence charged: [2-s 193.5].

[1-445] Failure of prosecutor or accused person to appear See [2-s 201] for procedure where the prosecutor is not present or the prosecutor and the accused person are both not present.

[1-450] Joint hearing Where an accused person is charged with two or more offences or two or more accused persons are separately charged with offences, a magistrate may hear the matters together if the parties consent or if the offences arise out of the same set of circumstances or the offences form or are part of a series of offences of a same or similar character: [2-s 29].

[1-455] The prosecution case See [1-435] for service of the prosecution brief of evidence upon the accused person. The practice upon the hearing shall in respect of the examination and cross examination of witnesses be as near as possible to that for a trial on indictment in the Supreme Court: [2-s 38]. See, generally, Procedure for Hearings on Indictment at [7-001]. Evidence shall be recorded: [2-s 39]. As to the taking of evidence, see [2-s 195]. It may be appropriate for a magistrate to hold a voir dire on the admissibility of evidence: Smithers v Andrews; Ex parte Andrews [1978] Qd R 64; Furnell v Betts (1978) 20 SASR 300; Egan v Bott [1985] VR 787. The role of a voir dire in summary criminal proceedings was considered in DPP v Zhang (2007) 48 MVR 78; [2007] NSWSC 308; BC200702344 at [107]–[112]. The Evidence Act 1995 at [3-s 1] ff makes extensive provision with respect to adducing evidence, admissibility of evidence, proof and other related matters.

[1-460] Re-opening prosecution case The magistrate has a discretion, in limited circumstances, to allow the prosecution to reopen its case: McDonald v Camerotto (1984) 36 SASR 66 at 70; 14 A Crim R 1 at 5–9;

18

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 20 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:10 bwpageid:: 18:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-485]

Muscat v Vucko (NSWSC, Studdert J, 28 June 1993, unreported); Ng v Haskett [2002] NSWSC 258; BC200201396 and authorities at [7-505].

[1-465] No case to answer At the conclusion of the prosecution case, the accused person can submit that there is no case to answer. See [2-s 202.1].

[1-470] The defence case Where the magistrate finds that there is a case to answer, the accused person may give evidence or call witnesses and make full answer and defence: s 195(2) at [2-s 195]. The accused person cannot make an unsworn statement: [2-s 31]. As to evidence for the defence generally, see [7-555].

[1-475] Case in reply If the accused person gives evidence or calls witnesses as to any matter other than as to his general character, the prosecutor may call and examine witnesses in reply: [2-s 195]. See also [7-495] and [7-575] with respect to the obligation of the prosecution to present its case completely and not split its case by calling evidence in reply to the defence case where it could have anticipated that the defence would raise such an issue.

[1-480] Addresses The practice in respect of making written submissions and addresses before a magistrate was considered in Mason v Lyon [2005] NSWSC 804; BC200505736; (2005) 12 Crim LN 64 [1915] where it was held that s 160 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was not determinative of how the matter should proceed in the Local Court as there was no parallel between proceedings before a jury and those before a magistrate. It was also held that there was no error by the magistrate in directing that written submissions by both the prosecutor and the defendant be submitted on the same date and that s 26 of the Local Courts Act 1982 (see now s 28 Local Court Act 2007 at [29-55,255]) provided the magistrate with the discretion to make the order that he did.

[1-485] Decision of magistrate After hearing what each party has to say and the witnesses and the evidence adduced, the magistrate shall consider and determine the whole matter and convict the accused person or dismiss the matter: [2-s 202]. A magistrate must ensure procedural fairness to the parties by raising any matter that the magistrate believes may affect his or her decision but has not been raised in the evidence or addresses of the parties before delivering judgment: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Gramelis [2010] NSWSC 787; BC201005079; 17(8) Crim LN [2772]. In that case a magistrate had taken judicial notice of the speed of a vehicle in second gear and some apparent inconsistency in the prosecution evidence without raising either of these matters so that she could be addressed on them. Where the accused person has not given or called evidence, the question remains whether the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused person’s guilt: May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654 at 658; [1955] ALR 671; BC5500740. The court can take into account that the accused person did not give evidence when deciding the weight to be given to inferences arising in the prosecution case: May v O’Sullivan,

19

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 21 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:10 bwpageid:: 19:: bwservice::0::

[1-485]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

above, at CLR 658–9. In determining the matter, the court should give itself the appropriate warnings necessary to evaluate the evidence: Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 38 FCR 95 at 107–8; 110 ALR 577; Sharrett v Gill (1993) 113 FLR 316; 65 A Crim R 44 at 49. The magistrate should give reasons for his or her decision stating the findings of fact and law applied, including the authorities relied upon: Donges v Ratcliffe [1975] 1 NSWLR 501; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 279; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Elias [2013] NSWSC 28; BC201300526; 20(3) Crim LN [3186].

[1-490] Sentencing As to sentencing procedure and practice, see [5-001] and following.

[1-495] Costs Where an accused person is convicted, the magistrate may order the accused person to pay the costs of the prosecutor as seem just and reasonable: [2-s 215]. Where an information is withdrawn or dismissed, the prosecutor may be ordered to pay the accused person’s costs subject to the statutory restriction provided for in s 214 where the prosecutor is a public informant. A magistrate may grant a certificate under s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 at [19-5005] where the information is dismissed.

[1-500] Review by Local Court Part 2 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 4] and following makes provision for review by the Local Court of convictions, orders or sentences of the court.

[1-510] Appeal and review (a) Supreme Court An accused person may appeal to the Supreme Court under s 52 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 52] against a conviction, order or sentence in summary proceedings upon a ground that involves a question of law. An accused person may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under s 53 at [4-s 53]. A prosecutor may appeal to the Supreme Court under s 56 at [4-s 56]. Sections 65, 69 and 75 of the Supreme Court Act at [2-20,575], [20-20,585] and [20-20,610] providing for prerogative and declaratory relief remain available with respect to criminal proceedings. (b) District Court An accused person may appeal to the District Court against any conviction made or sentence imposed by a magistrate by lodging a written notice of appeal within 28 days: [4-s 11]. Where an appeal is made to the District Court with respect to sentence, the appeal shall proceed on the evidence before the Local Court and fresh evidence given on appeal: [4-s 17]. An appeal against conviction is by way of rehearing on the transcripts of evidence heard before the magistrate who made the conviction or imposed the sentence except as provided by ss 18 and 19 at [4-s 18]–[4-s 19]. The nature of an appeal to the District Court was considered in Charara v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 39; [2006] NSWCCA 244;

20

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 22 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:11 bwpageid:: 20:: bwservice::0::

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES

[1-510]

BC200606505; 13 Crim LN 69 [2089]. Section 18(2) provides that, on an appeal, new evidence may be given only with the leave of the court if the court is of the opinion that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence be given. Sections 18 and 19 at [4-s 18]–[4-s 19] provide that the District Court may direct that a person attend to give evidence in person in appeal proceedings: (i) if the person is an alleged victim of an offence involving violence if the court is of the opinion that there are special reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should attend to give evidence or, (ii) in any other case, the court is of the opinion that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should attend to give evidence. If the District Court refuses to give a direction that a witness attend to give evidence in person, the court must give reasons for the refusal: [4-s 18]. Sections 18 and 19 introduce the concepts of “special reasons” and “substantial reasons” from ss 91 and 93 Criminal Procedure Act at [s 91] and following relating to committal proceedings. These terms have been judicially construed in the context of committal proceedings. See the authorities referred to at [2-s 91.10] and [2-s 93.5]. In Director of Public Prosecutions v Losurdo (1998) 44 NSWLR 618; 103 A Crim R 189; BC9804896; 5 Crim LN 74 [906], the court stated that it was not helpful to refer to a number of different meanings of “substantial” to construe its meaning in repealed s 48E. The meaning of the word depended upon its context. The court said at 622–3: “it is enough to say that the reasons which must be advanced must have substance in the context of the nature of committal proceedings and the provisions of the Justices Act relating to them.” Accordingly, for the purpose of s 18, reasons must have substance in the context of an appeal where the judge must decide whether the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The context is markedly different from committal proceedings. The powers of the District Court in determining appeals by the accused person are contained at [4-s 20]. The District Court retains the power to increase sentence on an accused person’s appeal: The principles in Parker v DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 282; 65 A Crim R 209 will continue to operate where a judge is contemplating an increased sentence. (c) Stated Case to Court of Criminal Appeal Section 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 at [20-230] permits a case to be stated, at the request of a party to the appeal, from the District Court to the Court of Criminal Appeal with respect to a question of law even though the appeal proceedings during which the question arose have been disposed of. The question of law must be submitted not later than 28 days after the end of the appeal proceedings or within such longer period as the Court of Criminal Appeal may allow. Section 5BA of the Criminal Appeal Act at [20-235] makes similar provision with respect to a stated case from the Land and Environment Court hearing an appeal from the Local Court concerning an environmental offence. (d) Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session An appeal against a conviction or penalty imposed by the Local Court for an offence against the Industrial Relations Act 1996 or related Acts including the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983, lies to the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session and not the District or Supreme Courts: s 197 Industrial Relations Act 1996.

21

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 23 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:11 bwpageid:: 21:: bwservice::0::

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/1_CPPN.PM Page: 24 Date: 29/10/2019 Time: 17:33:11 bwpageid:: 22:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section

Title

Paragraph

CHAPTER 1 — PRELIMINARY 1 2 3 4 4A

Name of Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commencement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations and rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 1] [2-s 2] [2-s 3] [2-s 4] [2-s 4A]

CHAPTER 2 — GENERAL PROVISIONS PART 1 — OFFENCES 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14A

Certain offences to be dealt with on indictment . . . . . . . . . Certain offences to be dealt with summarily . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain summary offences may be dealt with by Local Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecution of indictable offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Name in which prosecutions may be instituted . . . . . . . . . . Indictment of bodies corporate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short description of certain offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Venue in indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common informer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings for offences commenced by officers of ICAC or LECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 5] [2-s 6] [2-s 7] [2-s 8] [2-s 9] [2-s 10] [2-s 11] [2-s 12] [2-s 13] [2-s 14] [2-s 14A]

PART 2 — INDICTMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Application of Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain defects do not affect indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When formal objections to be taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judgment on demurrer to indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Traversing indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amendment of indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orders for amendment of indictment, separate trial and postponement of trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amended indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 3 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:5 bwpageid:: 23:: bwservice::0::

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

15] 16] 17] 18] 19] 20]

[2-s 21] [2-s 22]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

23 24 25 26 27

Title

Indictment may contain up to 3 similar counts . . . . . . . . . . Accessories may be charged together in one indictment . Indictment charging previous offence also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of written instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supreme Court rules may prescribe forms of indictments .

Paragraph

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

23] 24] 25] 26] 27]

PART 3 — CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36A 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Application of Part and definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When more than one offence may be heard at the same time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change of venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abolition of accused person’s right to make unsworn statement or to give unsworn evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indemnities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undertakings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice as to entering the dock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Right to inspect depositions on trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation and appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation and appearance in penalty notice matters . Conduct of case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing procedures to be as for Supreme Court . . . . . . . . Recording of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjournments generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How accused person to be dealt with during adjournment ....................................................... Witnesses in mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restitution of property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When case not to be proceeded with: accused person to be released from custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 28] [2-s 29] [2-s 30] [2-s 31] [2-s 32] [2-s 33] [2-s 34] [2-s 35] [2-s 36] [2-s 36A] [2-s 37] [2-s 38] [2-s 39] [2-s 40] [2-s 41] [2-s 42] [2-s 43] [2-s 44]

CHAPTER 3 — INDICTABLE PROCEDURE PART 1 — PRELIMINARY 45 46

Application of Chapter and definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jurisdiction of courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 45] [2-s 46]

PART 2 — COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS DIVISION 1 — COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

47 48 49

Commencement of committal proceedings by court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commencement of proceedings by police officer or public officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commencement of private prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 4 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:5 bwpageid:: 24:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 47] [2-s 48] [2-s 49]

Section

50 51 52 53 54

Title

Form of court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court attendance notice to be for one matter only [Repealed] Service of court attendance notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When proceedings commence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attendance of accused person at proceedings . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 50]

[2-s 52] [2-s 53] [2-s 54]

DIVISION 2 — COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY

55 56 57 58 59 60

Outline of committal proceedings steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magistrate to conduct committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . Committal proceedings to be heard in open court . . . . . . . Application of other procedural provisions to committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation of committal process and discount for guilty plea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of Drug Court proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 55] [2-s 56] [2-s 57] [2-s 58] [2-s 59] [2-s 60]

DIVISION 3 — DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE

61 62 63 64

Requirement to disclose evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matters to be disclosed in brief of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional material to be disclosed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exceptions to requirement to provide copies of material .

65

Prosecutors who may exercise charge certificate and case conference functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charge certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charge certificate must be filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure to file charge certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

61] 62] 63] 64]

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

65] 66] 67] 68]

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

69] 70] 71] 72] 73] 74] 75] 76]

DIVISION 4 — CHARGE CERTIFICATES

66 67 68

DIVISION 5 — CASE CONFERENCES

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 76A 77 78

Exceptions to requirements for case conference procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case conferences to be held . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case conference procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obligations of legal representative of accused . . . . . . . . . . . Joint accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case conference certificate must be completed and filed . Contents of case conference certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure to complete case conference obligations . . . . . . . . . Recordings of interviews with domestic violence complainants [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case conference certificate and other evidence not admissible in other proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 5 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 25:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 76A] [2-s 77] [2-s 78]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

79 79A 80 81

Title

Confidentiality of case conference certificate matters . . . . Form and requirements for recorded statements [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prohibition on publication of case conference material . . Certain matters not taken to be pre-trial disclosures . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 79] [2-s 79A] [2-s 80] [2-s 81]

DIVISION 6 — EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Magistrate may direct witness to attend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Witnesses who cannot be directed to attend . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victim witnesses, sexual offence witnesses and vulnerable witnesses generally not to be directed to attend . . . . . . Evidence of prosecution witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exceptions to oral evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence to be taken in presence of accused person . . . . . Evidentiary effect of statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statements must comply with requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence not to be admitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magistrate may set aside requirements for statements . . . False statements or representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 82] [2-s 83] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

84] 85] 86] 87] 88] 89] 90] 91] 92]

DIVISION 7 — COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL WHERE UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED RAISED

93 94

Committal for trial where unfitness to be tried raised . . . . Committal may take place after charge certification . . . . .

[2-s 93] [2-s 94]

DIVISION 8 — COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL OR SENTENCE

95 96 97 98 99

Committal timing generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Committal for trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guilty pleas and committal for sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Committal of unrepresented persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions may direct that no further proceedings be taken . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

95] 96] 97] 98]

[2-s 99]

DIVISION 9 — PROCEDURE ON COMMITTAL

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Procedure applicable after committal for sentence . . . . . . . Higher court may refer accused person back to Magistrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disposal of proceedings by higher court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change to not guilty plea in higher court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaning of “accused person” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disposal of proceedings by higher court [Repealed] . . . . . Change to not guilty plea in higher court [Repealed] . . . . Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions may direct that no further proceedings be taken [Repealed] . Meaning of “accused person” [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 6 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 26:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 100] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

101] 102] 103] 104] 105] 106]

[2-s 107] [2-s 108]

Section

Title Paragraph DIVISION 10 — GENERAL PROCEDURES AFTER COMMITTAL

109 110 111 112 113

Accused person to be committed to correctional centre . Bail acknowledgment to be notified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papers to be sent to officer of higher court . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibilities of appropriate officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copies of trial papers to be given to Director of Public Prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copies of transcripts of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaning of “accused person” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114 115

[2-s 109] [2-s 110] [2-s 111] [2-s 112] [2-s 113] [2-s 114] [2-s 115]

DIVISION 11 — COSTS

116 117 118 119 120

When costs may be awarded to accused persons . . . . . . . Limit on circumstances when costs may be awarded against a public officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs on adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content of costs orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforcement of costs orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 116] [2-s 117] [2-s 118] [2-s 119] [2-s 120]

PART 3 — TRIAL PROCEDURES DIVISION 1 — LISTING

121 122 123 124 125

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authority of Criminal Listing Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain matters not affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

121] 122] 123] 124] 125]

DIVISION 2 — COMMENCEMENT AND NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

126 127 128 129 130 130A 131 132 132A 133

Signing of indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manner of presenting indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions as to indictments to be presented in District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time within which indictment to be presented . . . . . . . . . . Trial proceedings after presentation of indictment and before empanelment of jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-trial orders and orders made during trial bind trial Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trial by jury in criminal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orders for trial by Judge alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applications for trial by judge alone in criminal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verdict of single Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 7 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 27:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 126] [2-s 127] [2-s 128] [2-s 129] [2-s 130] [2-s 130A] [2-s 131] [2-s 132] [2-s 132A] [2-s 133]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section Title Paragraph DIVISION 3 — CASE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS TO REDUCE DELAYS IN PROCEEDINGS

134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 146A 147 148 149 149A 149B 149C 149D 149E 149F

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions for conduct of proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of prosecution case to be given to accused person [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of defence response to be given to prosecutor [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-trial hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-trial conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mandatory pre-trial disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecution’s notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defence response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecution response to defence response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dispensing with formal proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sanctions for non-compliance with pre-trial disclosure requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drawing of inferences in certain circumstances . . . . . . . . . . Disclosure requirements are ongoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court may waive requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements as to notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copies of exhibits and other things not to be provided if impracticable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal details not to be provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements as to statements of witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemption for matters previously disclosed . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court powers to ensure efficient management and conduct of trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 134] [2-s 135] [2-s 136] [2-s 137] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

138] 139] 140] 141] 142] 143] 144] 145]

[2-s 146] [2-s 146A] [2-s 147] [2-s 148] [2-s 149] [2-s 149A] [2-s 149B] [2-s 149C] [2-s 149D] [2-s 149E] [2-s 149F]

DIVISION 4 — PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURE — GENERAL

150 151

Notice of alibi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of intention to adduce evidence of substantial mental impairment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 150] [2-s 151]

DIVISION 5 — PLEADINGS ON TRIAL

152 153 154 155 156 157

Arraignment on charge of previous conviction . . . . . . . . . . Guilty plea to offence not charged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plea of “not guilty” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refusal to plead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plea of autrefois convict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change to guilty plea during trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 8 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 28:: bwservice::0::

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

152] 153] 154] 155] 156] 157]

Section

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 164A

Title DIVISION 6 — OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO TRIALS

Transcript of statement in committal proceedings . . . . . . . . Opening address to jury by accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closing address to jury by accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary by Judge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative verdict of attempt on trial for any indictable offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No further prosecution after trial for serious indictable offence where alternative verdict possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joint trial in case of perjury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judge unable to continue in trial by jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

158] 159] 160] 161]

[2-s 162] [2-s 163] [2-s 164] [2-s 164A]

DIVISION 7 — CERTAIN SUMMARY OFFENCES MAY BE DEALT WITH

165 166 167 168 169

Definitions and application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certification and transfer of back up and related offences . Manner of dealing with back up and related offences . . . Procedures for dealing with certain offences related to indictable offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Remission of certain offences related to indictable offences to Local Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 165] [2-s 166] [2-s 167] [2-s 168] [2-s 169]

CHAPTER 4 — SUMMARY PROCEDURE PART 1 — PRELIMINARY 170 171

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 170] [2-s 171]

PART 2 — TRIAL PROCEDURES IN LOWER COURTS DIVISION 1 — COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181

Commencement of proceedings by court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commencement of proceedings by police officer or public officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commencement of private prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form of court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court attendance notice to be for one offence only [Repealed] Service of court attendance notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When proceedings commence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time limit for commencement of summary proceedings . Relationship to other law or practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attendance of accused person at proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 9 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 29:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 172] [2-s 173] [2-s 174] [2-s 175]

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

177] 178] 179] 180] 181]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

182 183 184 185 185A 186 187 188 189

Title DIVISION 2 — PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES

Written pleas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brief of evidence to be served on accused person where not guilty plea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recording of interviews with vulnerable persons . . . . . . . . Recordings of interviews with domestic violence complainants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form of copy of brief of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When brief of evidence need not be served . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence not to be admitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . False statements or representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 182] [2-s 183] [2-s 184] [2-s 185] [2-s 185A] [2-s 186] [2-s 187] [2-s 188] [2-s 189]

DIVISION 3 — HEARINGS

190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210

Time for hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings to be open to public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures where both parties present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure if offence admitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure if offence not admitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How evidence is taken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure if accused person not present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjournment when accused person not present . . . . . . . . . Absent accused person taken to have pleaded not guilty . Material to be considered when matter determined in absence of accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When court may require prosecution to provide additional evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure if prosecutor or both parties not present . . . . . Determination by court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional powers to adjourn summary proceedings . . . . Record of conviction or order to be made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Order dismissing matter to be made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of certificate that matter has been dismissed . . . . . Power to set aside conviction or order before sentence . Dismissal of matter if matter withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penalties applying to traffic offences committed by children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

190] 191] 192] 193] 194] 195] 196] 197] 198]

[2-s 199] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

200] 201] 202] 203] 204] 205] 206] 207] 208]

[2-s 209] [2-s 210]

DIVISION 4 — COSTS

211 211A 212

Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imposition of court costs levy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When costs may be awarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 10 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 30:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 211] [2-s 211A] [2-s 212]

Section

213 214 215 216 217 218

Title

When professional costs may be awarded to accused persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limit on award of professional costs to accused person against prosecutor acting in public capacity . . . . . . . . . . . When professional costs may be awarded to prosecutor . Costs on adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enforcement of costs orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public officers and police officers not personally liable for costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 213] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

214] 215] 216] 217]

[2-s 218]

DIVISION 5 — RULES

219

Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 219]

PART 3 — ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN LOWER COURTS 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issue of subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time for service of subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conduct money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limits on obligations under subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production by non-party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subpoena may be set aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inspection of subpoenaed documents and things . . . . . . . . Action that may be taken if person does not comply with subpoena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of Bail Act 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action that may be taken if witness refuses to give evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules relating to subpoenas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

220] 221] 222] 223] 224] 225] 226] 227] 228]

[2-s 229] [2-s 230] [2-s 231] [2-s 232]

PART 4 — WARRANTS DIVISION 1 — PRELIMINARY

233 234

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

235 236 237 238 239 240

When arrest warrants may be issued for accused persons . Form of arrest warrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duration of arrest warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persons who may execute arrest warrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure after arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revocation of warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 233] [2-s 234]

DIVISION 2 — ARREST WARRANTS

31

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 11 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 31:: bwservice::0::

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

235] 236] 237] 238] 239] 240]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

241 242 243 244

Title DIVISION 3 — WARRANTS OF COMMITMENT

Power to commit person to correctional centre subject to Bail Act 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form of warrants of commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for taking person to correctional centre or other place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defects in warrants of commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 241] [2-s 242] [2-s 243] [2-s 244]

PART 5 — SUMMARY JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGHER COURTS DIVISION 1 — JURISDICTION

245

Summary jurisdiction of Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 245]

DIVISION 2 — APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS

246 247

Orders for appearance or apprehension of accused persons ....................................................... Notices to be given to prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 246] [2-s 247]

DIVISION 2A — CASE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS TO REDUCE DELAYS IN PROCEEDINGS

247A 247B 247C 247D 247E 247F 247G 247H 247I 247J 247K 247L 247M 247N 247O 247P 247Q 247R 247S

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions for conduct of proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of prosecution case to be given to defendant . . . . . Notice of defence response to be given to prosecutor . . . Preliminary hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court may order preliminary disclosure in particular case . Prosecution notice — court-ordered preliminary disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defence response — court-ordered preliminary disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecution response to defence response — court-ordered preliminary disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dispensing with formal proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sanctions for non-compliance with preliminary disclosure requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disclosure requirements are ongoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court may waive requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements as to notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copies of exhibits and other things not to be provided if impracticable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal details not to be provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 12 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:6 bwpageid:: 32:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 247A] [2-s 247B] [2-s 247C] [2-s 247D] [2-s 247E] [2-s 247F] [2-s 247G] [2-s 247H] [2-s 247I] [2-s 247J] [2-s 247K] [2-s 247L] [2-s 247M] [2-s 247N] [2-s 247O] [2-s 247P] [2-s 247Q] [2-s 247R] [2-s 247S]

Section

247T 247U 247V 247W 247X 247Y

Title

Requirements as to statements of witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemption for matters previously disclosed . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court powers to ensure efficient management and conduct of trial or sentencing hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary orders and other orders bind presiding Judge ....................................................... Miscellaneous provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 247T] [2-s 247U] [2-s 247V] [2-s 247W] [2-s 247X] [2-s 247Y]

DIVISION 3 — TRIAL PROCEDURE

248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257

Pre-trial procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure where prosecutor does not, but accused person does, appear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure where accused person does not obey order to appear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure where both parties do not appear . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure where both parties appear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court may order payment of costs [Repealed] Enforcement of fines and orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Termination of lower court proceedings on commencement of proceedings under this Part . . . . . . . Effect of conviction under this Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules for summary criminal procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 248] [2-s 249] [2-s 250] [2-s 251] [2-s 252] [2-s 254] [2-s 255] [2-s 256] [2-s 257]

DIVISION 4 — COSTS

257A 257B 257C 257D 257E 257F 257G

Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When costs may be awarded to prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When professional costs may be awarded to accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limit on award of professional costs against a prosecutor acting in a public capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public officers and police officers not personally liable for costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs on adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculation of costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 257A] [2-s 257B] [2-s 257C] [2-s 257D] [2-s 257E] [2-s 257F] [2-s 257G]

CHAPTER 5 — SUMMARY DISPOSAL OF INDICTABLE OFFENCES BY LOCAL COURT 258 259 260 261

Objects of this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offences to which this Chapter applies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offences to be dealt with summarily unless election made to proceed on indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for dealing with offences summarily if no election made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 13 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 33:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 258] [2-s 259] [2-s 260] [2-s 261]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273

Title

Procedure for dealing with offences if election made . . . . Time for making election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election may be withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criminal record to be given to person charged (Table 1 offences) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum penalties for Table 1 offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum penalties for Table 2 offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offences by children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No time limit for offences dealt with summarily under this Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jurisdiction of Magistrates in respect of offences arising under Part 4AD of Crimes Act 1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 262] [2-s 263] [2-s 264] [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

265] 266] 267] 268] 269]

[2-s 270] [2-s 271] [2-s 272] [2-s 273]

CHAPTER 6 — EVIDENTIARY MATTERS PART 1 — PRELIMINARY 274 275

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 274] [2-s 275]

PART 2 — GENERAL 275A 275B 275C 276 277 278 279 279A 280 280A 281

NSW Police Force exhibits management system . . . . . . . . . Witness with communication difficulty entitled to assistance from person or communication aid . . . . . . . . . Court may direct expert evidence be given concurrently or consecutively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proof of service of notice to produce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stealing goods from vessel or wharf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incriminating statements admissible though on oath . . . . . Compellability of family members to give evidence in certain proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admission of evidence of complainant from related proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disclosure of address or telephone number of witness . . . Disclosure of personal information in subpoenaed documents and things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admissions by suspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 275A] [2-s 275B] [2-s 275C] [2-s 276] [2-s 277] [2-s 278] [2-s 279] [2-s 279A] [2-s 280] [2-s 280A] [2-s 281]

PART 2A — SENSITIVE EVIDENCE DIVISION 1 — PRELIMINARY

281A

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 14 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 34:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 281A]

Section

281B

Title

Sensitive evidence — meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 281B]

DIVISION 2 — EVIDENCE HELD BY PROSECUTING AUTHORITY

281C 281D 281E 281F

Accused person not entitled to copy of sensitive evidence . Procedures for giving access to sensitive evidence to accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecuting authority entitled to retain possession of sensitive evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improper copying or circulation of sensitive evidence . . .

[2-s 281C] [2-s 281D] [2-s 281E] [2-s 281F]

DIVISION 3 — EVIDENCE HELD BY HEALTH AUTHORITY

281FA 281FB 281FC 281FD 281FE 281FF 281FG

Accused person not entitled to obtain sensitive evidence from health authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health authority to give sensitive evidence notice . . . . . . . Access to be given to accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervised access arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health authority entitled to retain possession of sensitive evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improper copying or circulation of sensitive evidence . . . Evidence may be provided to prosecuting authority . . . . .

[2-s 281FA] [2-s 281FB] [2-s 281FC] [2-s 281FD] [2-s 281FE] [2-s 281FF] [2-s 281FG]

PART 2B — TERRORISM EVIDENCE 281G 281H 281I 281J 281K 281L 281M 281N

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accused person not entitled to copy of terrorism evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for dealing with terrorism evidence . . . . . . . . . . . Return of designated terrorism evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures for giving access to designated terrorism evidence to unrepresented accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . Improper copying or circulation of designated terrorism evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accused person not to possess designated terrorism evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecuting authority entitled to retain possession of terrorism evidence during criminal proceedings . . . . . . .

[2-s 281G] [2-s 281H] [2-s 281I] [2-s 281J] [2-s 281K] [2-s 281L] [2-s 281M] [2-s 281N]

PART 3 — SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DEVICES 282 283

Scientific examinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Law enforcement devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 282] [2-s 283]

PART 3A — STATEMENTS 283A 283B 283C

Application of Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form and requirements for written statements . . . . . . . . . . . Recordings of interviews with vulnerable persons . . . . . . .

35

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 15 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 35:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 283A] [2-s 283B] [2-s 283C]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

283D 283E 283F 283G 283H

Title

Recordings of interviews with domestic violence complainants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form and requirements for recorded statements . . . . . . . . . Death of person who made statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of previous statements in cases involving prescribed sexual offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations relating to requirements for statements . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 283D] [2-s 283E] [2-s 283F] [2-s 283G] [2-s 283H]

PART 4 — DEPOSITIONS AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS 284 285 286 287 288 289

Depositions by persons dangerously ill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depositions tendered by prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depositions tendered by accused person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidentiary effect of certain transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depositions taken during pre-trial investigations . . . . . . . . . Written statements admitted in committal proceedings . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

284] 285] 286] 287] 288] 289]

PART 4A — USE OF RANDOM SAMPLE EVIDENCE 289A 289B

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of random sample evidence in child abuse material cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 289A] [2-s 289B]

PART 4B — GIVING OF EVIDENCE BY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPLAINANTS DIVISION 1 — PRELIMINARY

289C 289D 289E

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaning of “recorded statement” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship to Evidence Act 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 289C] [2-s 289D] [2-s 289E]

DIVISION 2 — GIVING OF EVIDENCE OF OUT OF COURT REPRESENTATIONS

289F 289G 289H 289I 289J 289K

Complainant may give evidence in chief in form of recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determination as to whether evidence will be given by recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of evidence in concurrent or related domestic violence proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admissibility of recorded evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warning to jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcripts of recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 289F] [2-s 289G] [2-s 289H] [2-s 289I] [2-s 289J] [2-s 289K]

DIVISION 3 — SERVICE OF AND ACCESS TO RECORDED STATEMENTS

289L 289M

Service of recorded statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access to recorded statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 16 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 36:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 289L] [2-s 289M]

Section

289N 289O 289P 289Q 289R 289S

Title DIVISION 4 — MISCELLANEOUS

Validity of proceedings not affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prosecutor entitled to retain possession of recorded statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improper copying or dissemination of recorded statement . Court powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules of court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 289N] [2-s 289O] [2-s 289P] [2-s 289Q] [2-s 289R] [2-s 289S]

PART 5 — EVIDENCE IN SEXUAL OFFENCE PROCEEDINGS DIVISION 1 — EVIDENCE IN CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENCE PROCEEDINGS

290 290A 291 291A 291B 291C 292 293 293A 294 294AA 294A

294B 294C 294CA 294D

Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings must be held in camera when complainant gives evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other parts of proceedings may be heard in camera . . . . . Incest offence proceedings to be held entirely in camera . Media access to proceedings held in camera . . . . . . . . . . . . Publication of evidence may be forbidden in certain cases [Repealed] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admissibility of evidence relating to sexual experience . Warning may be given by Judge if differences in complainant’s account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warning to be given by Judge in relation to lack of complaint in certain sexual offence proceedings . . . . . . . Warning to be given by Judge in relation to complainants’ evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arrangements for complainant in prescribed sexual offence proceedings giving evidence when accused person is unrepresented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giving of evidence by complainant in prescribed sexual offence proceedings — alternative arrangements . . . . . . Complainant entitled to have support person or persons present when giving evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admission of evidence of sexual offence witness given as complainant in earlier proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protections of Division extend to tendency witnesses . . . .

[2-s 290] [2-s 290A] [2-s 291] [2-s 291A] [2-s 291B] [2-s 291C] [2-s 292] [2-s 293] [2-s 293A] [2-s 294] [2-s 294AA] [2-s 294A] [2-s 294B] [2-s 294C] [2-s 294CA] [2-s 294D]

DIVISION 2 — SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE

295 296 297 298

Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is a protected confidence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protected confidences — preliminary criminal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protected confidences — criminal proceedings . . . . . . . . . .

37

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 17 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 37:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 295] [2-s 296] [2-s 297] [2-s 298]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

298A 299 299A 299B 299C 299D 300 301 302 303 304 305 305A 306

Title

Victim cannot be required to identify counsellor . . . . . . . . Court to inform of rights under Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protected confider has standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determining if there is a protected confidence . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of application for leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determining whether to grant leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loss of sexual assault communications privilege: misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ancillary orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court to inform of rights to make applications and objections [Repealed] Court may inspect documents [Repealed] Inadmissibility of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subpoenas for production of counselling communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of common law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 298A] [2-s 299] [2-s 299A] [2-s 299B] [2-s 299C] [2-s 299D] [2-s 300] [2-s 301] [2-s 302]

[2-s 305] [2-s 305A] [2-s 306]

DIVISION 3 — SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RETRIALS OF SEXUAL OFFENCE PROCEEDINGS

306A 306B 306C 306D 306E 306F 306G

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admission of evidence of complainant or special witness in new trial proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complainant or special witness not compellable to give further evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complainant or special witness may elect to give further evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Form in which record of original evidence of complainant or special witness is to be tendered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access to audio visual or audio recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exhibits may also be tendered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306A] [2-s 306B] [2-s 306C] [2-s 306D] [2-s 306E] [2-s 306F] [2-s 306G]

DIVISION 4 — SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SUBSEQUENT TRIALS OF SEXUAL OFFENCE PROCEEDINGS

306H 306I 306J 306K 306L

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admission of evidence of complainant or special witness in new trial proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Whether complainant or special witness compellable to give further evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complainant or special witness may elect to give further evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of provisions dealing with form of record of original evidence, access to recordings and exhibits . . .

38

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 18 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 38:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 306H] [2-s 306I] [2-s 306J] [2-s 306K] [2-s 306L]

Section

Title

Paragraph

PART 6 — GIVING OF EVIDENCE BY VULNERABLE PERSONS DIVISION 1 — PRELIMINARY

306M 306N 306O 306P

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Words and expressions used in Evidence Act 1995 . . . . . . Relationship to Evidence Act 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306M] [2-s 306N] [2-s 306O] [2-s 306P]

DIVISION 2 — RECORDING OF OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS

306Q

Regulations may require interviews with vulnerable persons to be recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306Q]

DIVISION 3 — GIVING EVIDENCE OF OUT OF COURT REPRESENTATIONS

306R 306S 306T 306U 306V 306W 306X 306Y 306Z

Evidence to which this Division applies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ways in which evidence of vulnerable person may be given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wishes of vulnerable person to be taken into account . . . Vulnerable person entitled to give evidence in chief in form of recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Admissibility of recorded evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative arrangements for giving evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . Warning to jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence not to be given in form of recording if contrary to interests of justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcripts of recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306R] [2-s 306S] [2-s 306T] [2 s 306U] [2-s 306V] [2-s 306W] [2-s 306X] [2-s 306X] [2-s 306Z]

DIVISION 4 — GIVING OF EVIDENCE BY CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION

306ZA 306ZB 306ZC 306ZD 306ZE 306ZF 306ZG 306ZH

306ZI

Application of Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vulnerable persons have a right to give evidence by closed-circuit television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accused vulnerable persons may be allowed to give evidence by closed-circuit television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giving evidence by closed-circuit television . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giving identification evidence when closed-circuit television is used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings may be moved to allow use of closed-circuit television facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Use of closed-circuit television or similar technology . . . Vulnerable persons have a right to alternative arrangements for giving evidence when closed-circuit television facilities not available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warning to jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306ZA] [2-s 306ZB] [2-s 306ZC] [2-s 306ZD] [2-s 306ZE] [2-s 306ZF] [2-s 306ZG]

[2-s 306ZH] [2-s 306ZI]

DIVISION 5 — MISCELLANEOUS

306ZJ

Validity of proceedings not affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 19 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:7 bwpageid:: 39:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 306ZJ]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Section

306ZK 306ZL 306ZM 306ZN 306ZO 306ZP

Title

Vulnerable persons have a right to presence of a support person while giving evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vulnerable persons have a right to alternative arrangements for giving evidence when accused is unrepresented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General discretion of court not affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rules of court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paragraph

[2-s 306ZK] [2-s 306ZL] [2-s 306ZM] [2-s 306ZN] [2-s 306ZO] [2-s 306ZP]

PART 7 — MISCELLANEOUS 306ZQ

Complainants in domestic violence offence proceedings have a right to presence of a support person while giving evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 306ZQ]

CHAPTER 7 — MISCELLANEOUS PART 1 — GENERAL 307 308 309 309A 310 311 312 313 314 314A 315 316 317 317A

No court fees to be taken from accused persons . . . . . . . . . Bail decision may be made in respect of witness who fails to attend trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certificate as to indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certificate may be issued to victim of identity crime . . . . Warrants that may be issued on production of certificate . Procedure after arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persons arrested under bench warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media access to court documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of pre-trial disclosure provisions enacted by Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Act 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savings, transitional and other provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provisions relating to offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bail Act 2013 to prevail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courts to deal expeditiously with persons arrested for sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 307] [2-s 308] [2-s 309] [2-s 309A] [2-s 310] [2-s 311] [2-s 312] [2-s 313] [2-s 314] [2-s 314A] [2-s 315] [2-s 316] [2-s 317] [2-s 317A]

PART 3 — PENALTY NOTICE OFFENCES 332 333 334 335 336 337

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Police may issue penalty notices for certain offences . . . . Penalty notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penalty notices may not be issued to children . . . . . . . . . . . Penalty notice offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 20 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:8 bwpageid:: 40:: bwservice::0::

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

332] 333] 334] 335] 336] 337]

Section

338 339 340 341 342 343 344 344A

Title

Paragraph

Effect of payment of penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitation on exercise of penalty notice powers . . . . . . . . . Withdrawal of penalty notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powers relating to identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of Part on other procedures and powers . . . . . . . . . . Limited implementation of penalty notice provisions . . . . Monitoring of Part by Ombudsman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further review by Ombudsman — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s [2-s

338] 339] 340] 341] 342] 343] 344]

[2-s 344A]

PART 4 — INTERVENTION PROGRAMS DIVISION 1 — PRELIMINARY

345 346

Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 345] [2-s 346]

DIVISION 2 — INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

347 348 349

Declaration and regulation of intervention programs . . . . Offences in respect of which an intervention program may be conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eligibility of certain persons to participate in intervention program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 347] [2-s 348] [2-s 349]

DIVISION 3 — ADJOURNMENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH INTERVENTION PROGRAM

350

Court may adjourn proceedings to allow accused person to be assessed for or to participate in intervention program .......................................................

[2-s 350]

DIVISION 4 — MISCELLANEOUS

351 352

Regulations with respect to the provision or disclosure of information in connection with intervention programs . Relationship with other legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHEDULE 1 — INDICTABLE OFFENCES TRIABLE SUMMARILY SCHEDULE 2 — SAVINGS, TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS SCHEDULE 3 — PROVISIONS OFFENCES

41

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 21 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:8 bwpageid:: 41:: bwservice::0::

RELATING

TO

[2-s 351] [2-s 352]

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 22 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:8 bwpageid:: 42:: bwservice::0::

TABLE OF AMENDMENTS Criminal Procedure Act 1986 No 209, received assent 23 December 1986, commenced 13 July 1987 (Gaz 117 of 10 July 1987), as amended by (since 2004): Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Lanes) Act 2004 No 22

16 April 2004

s 3 and Sch 3: on assent

Crimes Amendment (Child Neglect) Act 2004 No 41

6 July 2004

s 4 and Sch 2 (Gaz 166 of 22 October 2004)

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2004 No 48

6 July 2004

12 November 2004 Sch 2 (s 2(2)) (Gaz 179 of 12 November 2004)

Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Act 2004 No 49

6 July 2004

5 November 2004 (Gaz 174 of 5 November 2004)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Offence Evidence) Act 2004 No 50

6 July 2004

s 3 and Sch 1: on assent (Gaz 117 of 9 July 2004)

Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2004 No 68

6 July 2004

s 3 and Sch 6: on assent

Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Act 2004 No 95

15 December 2004

1 January 2005 (Gaz 200 of 17 December 2004)

Legal Profession Act 2004 No 112

21 December 2004

All: 1 October 2005 (s 2 and Gaz No 105 of 19 August 2005)

Marine Safety (Random Breath Testing) Act 2005 No 4

10 March 2005

13 May 2005 (Gaz 54 of 13 May 2005)

Road Transport (General) Act 2005 No 11

14 April 2005

s 247 and Sch 3.33[1]–[3], [15]–[19]: 1 December 2005; rem: 30 September 2005 (Gaz 120 of 30 September 2005)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Evidence) Act 2005 No 15

12 May 2005

Date of assent (Gaz 57 of 20 May 2005)

Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Act 2005 No 25

31 May 2005

12 August 2005 (Gaz 101 of 12 August 2005); Sch 1[5] and [7]: 25 November 2005

Civil Procedure Act 2005 No 28

1 June 2005

15 August 2005 (Gaz 100 of 10 August 2005)

Crimes Amendment (Road Accidents) (Brendan’s Law) Act 2005 No 74

26 October 2005

13 February 2006 (Gaz 16 of 3 February 2006)

43

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 23 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:8 bwpageid:: 43:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Prosecutions) Act 2005 No 75

26 October 2005

21 September 2005 (Gaz 131 of 28 October 2005)

Crimes Amendment (Animal Cruelty) Act 2005 No 94

24 November 2005

16 December 2005 (Gaz 158 of 16 December 2005)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual Offence Case Management) Act 2005 No 102

1 December 2005

1 December 2005

Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 No 119

15 December 2005

On assent

Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Act 2006 No 14

11 April 2006

9 February 2007

Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006 No 23

17 May 2006

s 3 and Sch 2: 13 July 2006

Crimes Amendment (Organised Car and Boat Theft) Act 2006 No 26

26 May 2006

1 September 2006

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Act 2006 No 61

28 September 2006

15 December 2006

Crimes Amendment (Apprehended Violence) Act 2006 No 73

27 October 2006

12 March 2007 (Gaz 130 of 3 November 2006)

Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing) Act 2006 No 79

27 October 2006

15 December 2006

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Sexual and Other Offences) Act 2006 No 88

2 November 2006

s 3 and Sch 1: 1 January 2007

Police Amendment (Miscellaneous) Act 2006 No 94

22 November 2006

Sch 3.9: 1 February 2007 (s 2 and Gaz No 22 of 1 February 2007)

Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006 No 107

29 November 2006

Sch 1.11 [1]–[19], [22] and [23]: on assent (s 2(2)); Sch 1.11[20] and [21]: 18 December 2009 (LW 18 December 2009, SI 606 of 2009)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2006 No 120

4 December 2006

s 3 and Schs 1.8, 3.7: 4 December 2006

Police Powers Legislation Amendment Act 2006 No 128

12 December 2006

s 6 and Sch 4: 12 December 2006

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Vulnerable Persons) Act 2007 No 6

15 June 2007

12 October 2007

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2007 No 27

4 July 2007

Sch 1[1.13]: 1 July 2008

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Local Court Process Reforms) Act 2007 No 34

4 July 2007

14 November 2007

44

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 24 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:8 bwpageid:: 44:: bwservice::0::

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Crimes Amendment Act 2007 No 38

27 September 2007

Sch 3.1[1], [3]–[6]: on assent; Sch 3.1[2]: 15 February 2008

Evidence Amendment Act 2007 No 46

1 November 2007

1 January 2009 (s 2 and Gaz 158 of 19 December 2008)

Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 2007 No 57

15 November 2007

Sch 1[1], [11], [12], [15]: 15 November 2007; Sch 1[2]–[10], [12]–[14], [16]: 7 December 2007

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64

23 November 2007

1 August 2008

Crimes Amendment (Sexual Procurement or Grooming of Children) Act 2007 No 74

7 December 2007

18 January 2008 (Gaz 9 of 18 January 2008)

Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Amendment Act 2007 No 75

7 December 2007

1 January 2009 (Gaz 158 of 19 December 2008)

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 No 80

7 December 2007

s 103 and Sch 2.9: 10 March 2008 (Gaz 30 of 7 March 2008)

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Act 2007 No 87

13 December 2007

s 6 and Sch 4.2: 20 October 2008

Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Act 2007 No 92

13 December 2007

Sch 4: 1 July 2008

Miscellaneous Acts (Local Court) Amendment Act 2007 No 94

13 December 2007

Schs 1.28, 2 and 3: 6 July 2009 (s 2 and SI 314 of 2009, LW 3 July 2009)

Electricity Supply Amendment (Offences) Act 2008 No 2

19 March 2008

All: on assent (s 2)

Crimes Amendment (Rock Throwing) Act 2008 No 18

20 May 2008

23 May 2008 (Gaz 56 of 23 May 2008)

Mining Amendment Act 2008 No 19

20 May 2008

Sch 2.2[1] and [3]: 15 November 2010 (s 2 and SI 617 of 2010, LW 5 November 2010); Sch 2.2[2]: 1 August 2008 (s 2 and Gaz 93 of 1 August 2008)

Fines Amendment Act 2008 No 40

25 June 2008

Sch 2: on assent

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment Act 2008 No 54

1 July 2008

Sch 2: 3 November 2008 (s 2(1) and Gaz 138 of 31 October 2008)

Crimes Amendment (Cognitive Impairment — Sexual Offences) Act 2008 No 74

28 October 2008

1 December 2008 (s 2 and Gaz 150 of 21 November 2008)

45

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 25 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:9 bwpageid:: 45:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008 No 105

8 December 2008

Sch 2: 1 January 2009 (s 2(1) and Gaz 158 of 19 December 2008)

Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2008 No 107

8 December 2008

Sch 7[1]–[10] and [12]: on assent (s 2(1)); Sch 7[11]: 18 December 2009 (s 2(3)(b) and SI 606 of 2009, LW 18 December 2009); Sch 29: 7 April 2009 (s 2(2) and SI 112 of 2009, LW 3 April 2009)

Rural Lands Protection Amendment Act 2008 No 112

10 December 2008

s 4 and Sch 6.3: 1 January 2009

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No 2) Act 2008 No 114

10 December 2008

Sch 2.8[1]–[2], [4]: on assent (s 2); Sch 2.8[3]: 1 August 2008 (Sch 2.8)

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment Act 2009 No 4

30 March 2009

Sch 2: on assent (s 2(1))

Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 No 6*

3 April 2009

on assent (s 2)

Criminal Organisations Legislation Amendment Act 2009 No 23

19 May 2009

Sch 3: 19 May 2009 (s 2)

Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 2009 No 27

19 May 2009

On assent (s 2)

Energy Legislation Amendment (Infrastructure Protection) Act 2009 No 31

9 June 2009

1 July 2010 (SI 320 of 2010, LW 1 July 2010)

Coroners Act 2009 No 41

19 June 2009

Sch 4: 1 January 2010 (s 2(1) and SI 544 of 2009, LW 27 November 2009)

Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Traffic Offence Detection) Act 2009 No 50

26 June 2009

11 September 2009 (s 2 and SI 454 of 2009, LW 4 September 2009)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 No 56

1 July 2009

Schs 2.11 and 3.3: 17 July 2009 (s 2)

Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009 No 99

14 December 2009

22 February 2010 (s 2 and SI 41 of 2010, LW 19 February 2010)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Act 2009 No 112

14 December 2009

1 February 2010 (s 2 and SI 10 of 2010, LW 22 January 2010)

*

On 23 June 2011, the High Court in Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 278 ALR 1; 85 ALJR 746; [2011] HCA 24; BC201104388 stated in response to the question in that case that “The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW) is invalid”.

46

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 26 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:9 bwpageid:: 46:: bwservice::0::

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Fisheries Management Amendment Act 2009 No 114

14 December 2009

Sch 2: 1 April 2010 (s 2 and SI 112 of 2010, LW 1 April 2010)

Crimes Amendment (Police Pursuits) Act 2010 No 2

18 March 2010

On assent (s 2)

Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Act 2010 No 9

28 April 2010

Sch 2[4]–[6] and [10]: on assent (s 2(2)); Sch 2[1]– [3], [7]–[9]: 17 September 2010 (s 2 and SI 517 of 2010)

Relationships Register Act 2010 No 19

19 May 2010

Sch 3: on assent (s 2(2))

Weapons and Firearms Legislation Amendment Act 2010 No 40

15 June 2010

9 July 2010 (s 2 and SI 351 of 2010, LW 9 July 2010)

Health Legislation Amendment Act 2010 No 52

28 June 2010

Sch 1.2: 30 July 2010 (s 2 and SI 385 of 2010, LW 30 July 2010)

Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2010 No 63

28 June 2010

Sch 1.8: 28 June 2010 (s 2)

Law Enforcement and National Security (Assumed Identities) Act 2010 No 73

29 September 2010

On assent (s 2)

Courts and Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2010 No 88

1 November 2010

Sch 2: on assent (s 2)

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 No 106

29 November 2010

1 July 2011 (s 2 and SI 296 of 2011, LW 24 June 2011)

Courts and Crimes Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010 No 135

7 December 2010

Sch 12.1 and Sch 12.2[1], [3]–[5]: on assent (s 2); Sch 12.2[2]: 14 January 2011 (s 2)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2011 No 62

16 November 2011

Sch 3.7: 6 January 2012 (s 2(1))

Work Health and Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2011 No 67

28 November 2011

Sch 4.6: 1 January 2012 (s 2)

Crimes Amendment (Consorting and Organised Crime) Act 2012 No 3

14 March 2012

Sch 2.2: 9 April 2012 (s 2 and SI 143 of 2012, LW 5 April 2012)

Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012 No 9

21 March 12

Sch 1.4: 21 March 2012 (s 2)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Summary Proceedings Case Management) Act 2012 No 10

21 March 2012

Sch 1: 30 April 2012 (s 2 and SI 166 of 2012, LW 27 April 2012)

Courts and Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2012 No 11

21 March 2012

Sch 1.1: 21 March 2012 (s 2)

Courts and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 No 60

10 September 2012

Sch 5: 1 January 2014 (s 2 and SI 717 of 2013, LW 20 December 2013)

47

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 27 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:9 bwpageid:: 47:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012 No 64

13 September 2012

13 September 2012 (s 2)

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2012 No 67

24 September 2012

24 September 2012 (s 2)

Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment (Royalties and Penalties) Act 2012 No 84

29 October 2012

Sch 2.1: 1 January 2013 (s 2 and SI 667 of 2012, LW 21 December 2012)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2012 No 95

21 November 2012

Sch 1.7 and 2.8: 4 January 2013 (s 2)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Court Costs Levy) Act 2013 No 8

25 March 2013

Sch 1: 13 May 2013 (s 2 and SI 193 of 2013)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10

25 March 2013

1 September 2013 (s 2 and SI 444 of 2013)

Road Transport Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2013 No 19

3 April 2013

1 July 2013 (s 2 and SI 329 of 2013, LW 28 June 2013)

Local Land Services Act 2013 No 51

1 July 2013

Sch 7: 1 January 2014 (s 2)

Firearms and Criminal Groups Legislation Amendment Act 2013 No 74

23 October 2013

1 November 2013 (s 2 and SI 623 of 2013, LW 1 November 2013)

Child Protection Legislation Amendment (Offenders Registration and Prohibition Orders) Act 2013 No 77

29 October 2013

29 October 2013 (s 2)

Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2013 No 80

29 October 2013

29 October 2013 (s 2)

Companion Animals Amendment Act 2013 No 86

11 November 2013

Sch 3: 18 November 2013 (s 2(1) and SI 644 of 2013, LW 15 November 2013)

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2013 No 90

20 November 2013

20 November 2013 (s 2)

Civil and Administrative Legislation (Repeal and Amendment) Act 2013 No 95

20 November 2013

1 January 2014 (s 2)

Bail (Consequential Amendments) Act 2014 No 5

12 March 2014

20 May 2014 (s 2 and SI 235 of 2014, LW 24 April 2014)

Crimes Amendment (Strangulation) Act 2014 No 23

5 June 2014

5 June 2014 (s 2)

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment (Statutory Review) Act 2014 No 54

23 October 2014

23 October 2014 (s 2)

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Amendment Act 2014 No 58

23 October 2014

7 January 2015 (s 2 and SI 831 of 2014, LW 19 December 2014)

48

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 28 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:10 bwpageid:: 48:: bwservice::0::

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2014 No 59

23 October 2014

23 October 2014 (s 2)

Rural Fires Amendment Act 2014 No 66

28 October 2014

28 October 2014 (s 2)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Act 2014 No 83

28 November 2014

1 June 2015 (s 2 and SI 247 of 2015, LW 29 May 2015)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2014 No 88

28 November 2014

Schs 1.5 and 2.16: 8 January 2015 (s 2(1))

Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Legislation Amendment Act 2015 No 7

9 June 2015

Sch 2.11: 1 July 2015 (s 2(2) and SI 299 of 2015, LW 19 June 2015)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 No 15

29 June 2015

Sch 2.14: 8 July 2015 (s 2(1))

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Child Sexual Offence Evidence Pilot) Act 2015 No 46

5 November 2015

5 November 2015 (s 2)

Firearms and Weapons Prohibition Legislation Amendment Act 2015 No 63

24 November 2015

24 November 2015 (s 2)

Courts and Other Justice Portfolio Legislation Amendment Act 2015 No 67

24 November 2015

Sch 1.8: 24 November 2015 (s 2(1))

Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 No 15

11 May 2016

Sch 2: 25 November 2016 (s 2 and SI 694 of 2016, LW 25 November 2016)

Criminal Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Public Safety) Act 2016 No 16

11 May 2016

Sch 4[1], [3]: 8 September 2016 (s 2 and SI 577 of 2016, LW 8 September 2016); Sch 4[2]: 31 March 2017 (s 2 and SI 95 of 2017, LW 24 March 2017)

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Summary Proceedings for Indictable Offences) Act 2016 No 44

28 September 2016

Sch 1: 11 November 2016 (s 2 and SI 661 of 2016, LW 4 November 2016)

Industrial Relations Amendment (Industrial Court) Act 2016 No 48

18 October 2016

Sch 2.13: 8 December 2016 (s 2(1) and SI 674 of 2016, LW 15 November 2016)

Justice Portfolio Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016 No 54

25 October 2016

Sch 1.7: 25 October 2016 (s 2)

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 2016 No 55

25 October 2016

Sch 3.7: 6 January 2017 (s 2(1))

49

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 29 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:10 bwpageid:: 49:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 No 61

14 November 2016

Sch 6.11: 1 July 2017 (s 2(1) and SI 256 of 2017, LW 16 June 2017)

Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment Act 2016 No 65

23 November 2016

Sch 3.2: 7 August 2017

Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 No 10

4 April 2017

Sch 5.3: 1 December 2017

Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment Act 2017 No 26

27 June 2017

Sch 5: 1 November 2017 (s 2 and 2017 (294) LW (30 June 2017))

Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2017 No 29

27 June 2017

Sch 2.3: 25 August 2017

Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2017 No 40

14 August 2017

Sch 1.9: 14 August 2017 (s 2(1))

Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2017 No 44

25 September 2017

Sch 1.9: 25 September 2017 (s 2(1))

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 No 53

24 October 2017 (LW 21 September 2018)

Sch 4 item 4.14: 24 September 2018

Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 No 55

24 October 2017

Sch 1: 30 April 2018

Electoral Act 2017 No 66

30 November 2017

Sch 8 item 8.6: 1 July 2018

Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 No 68

30 November 2017 (LW 19 January 2018)

Sch 2.11: 19 January 2018

Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 No 4

21 March 2018; LW 13 April 2018

Sch 1.5[1], [10]: 21 March 2018; Sch 1.5[3], [5], [9]: 16 April 2018 (LW 13 April 2018); Sch 1 item 1.5[2], [4], [6]–[8]: 2 July 2018 (s 2(2))

Electoral Funding Act 2018 No 20

30 May 2018

Sch 3 item 3.1: 1 July 2018

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 No 25

15 June 2018

Sch 1 item 1.7: 30 April 2018; Sch 5 item 5.10: 29 June 2018 (s 2(1))

Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2018 No 29

21 June 2018

Sch 1 item 1.10[1]–[13], [15]–[18], Sch 2 item 2.6[1]–[2]: 21 June 2018 (s 2(1)); Sch 1 item 1.10[14]: 1 January 2019 (s 2 and 2018 (675))

Crimes Amendment (Publicly Threatening and Inciting Violence) Act 2018 No 32

27 June 2018 (LW 10 August 2018)

Sch 3: 13 August 2018

50

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 30 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:10 bwpageid:: 50:: bwservice::0::

Amending Legislation

Date of Assent

Date of Commencement

Criminal Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse) Act 2018 No 33

27 June 2018 (LW 30 November 2018)

Sch 4[1], [6], [12], [15]: 31 August 2018; Sch 4[2]–[5], [7]–[11], [13], [14], [16]–[19]: 1 December 2018

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pretrial Disclosure) Act 2018 No 47

27 September 2018 (LW 2 November 2018)

2 November 2018

Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2018 No 83

28 November 2018

Sch 3 item 3.2: 1 December 2018

Justice Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2018 No 87

28 November 2018

Sch 1 item 1.15: 28 November 2018

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Victims) Act 2018 No 88

28 November 2018

Sch 5: 1 December 2018

Community Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2018 No 94

28 November 2018

Sch 1 item 1.5: 28 November 2018

Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2019 No 10

26 September 2019

Sch 1.9: 26 September 2019

Abortion Law Reform Act 2019 No 11

2 October 2019

Sch 2.2: 2 October 2019

51

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 31 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 51:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 32 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 52:: bwservice::0::

[Long Title am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 7 July 2003]

CHAPTER 1 — PRELIMINARY [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[2], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 1] Name of Act 1

This Act may be cited as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

[2-s 2] Commencement 2 (1) Sections 1 and 2 shall commence on the date of assent to this Act. (2) Except as provided by subsection (1), this Act shall commence on such day as may be appointed by the Governor and notified by proclamation published in the Gazette. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 2 Commencement of amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings commenced on or after 7 July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proceedings commenced before 7 July 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 2.1] [2-s 2.5] [2-s 2.10]

[2-s 2.1] Commencement of amendments Amendments effected to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Justices and Local Courts) Act 2001 (“the 2001 Act”) commenced on 7 July 2003. [2-s 2.5] Proceedings commenced on or after 7 July 2003 The provisions of the amended Criminal Procedure Act, and any instruments made under that Act, apply to or in relation to proceedings for an offence committed before 7 July 2003 if proceedings for the offence were not commenced before that date: cl 29(1), Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. [2-s 2.10] Proceedings commenced before 7 July 2003 The provisions of the repealed Justices Act 1902 and the Criminal Procedure Act as it stood before amendment by the 2001 Act, and any instruments made under those Acts, continue to apply to or in relation to proceedings for an offence committed before 7 July 2003, if proceedings for the offence were commenced before that date: cl 29(2), Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. For the purpose of cl 29(2) of Sch 3, proceedings are taken to have been commenced in respect of an offence if an information was laid or a complaint made, or an attendance notice issued, in relation to the offence, before 7 July 2003: cl 29(3), Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. Clause 29 applies to all proceedings for offences (including committal proceedings): cl 29(4), Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. Clause 29 does not apply to or in respect of the appeal and review provisions in Pts 4A, 5, 5A and 5B of the repealed Justices Act 1902: cl 29(5), Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. See [4-s 2.1] for the savings and transitional provisions applicable to appeals from and review of Local Court criminal decisions. By operation of cl 30, Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3], provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act as it stood before amendment by the 2001 Act, and any instrument made under that Act continue to apply to or in relation to:

53

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 33 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 53:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

An Act relating to the prosecution of indictable offences, the listing of criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the District Court, committal proceedings and proceedings for summary offences and the giving of certain indemnities and undertakings; and for other purposes.

[2-s 2.10]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s2

(a) requiring the appearance of accused persons, witnesses and other persons at proceedings relating to offences to which that Act and the Justices Act continue to apply; (b) the issue and enforcement of and requirements for warrants of apprehension and commitment relating to offences to which that Act and the Justices Act continue to apply; (c) the service of process and other documents relating to offences to which that Act and the Justices Act continue to apply. A warrant issued under the Justices Act 1902 before 7 July 2003 and in force at that date continues to have effect, and may be executed and enforced as if that Act were still in force: cl 31, Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. The provisions of the Justices Act 1902 and any instrument made under that Act continue to apply to or in relation to orders for, and the payment of, costs by accused persons or other persons in any proceedings commenced under that Act before 7 July 2003 and the enforcement of any such order: cl 31, Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3]. See also cl 25, Sch 3 at [2-Sch 3] for general savings relating to proceedings where something was done under a repealed provision and where the same thing could have been done under the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, as amended by the 2001 Act, or the now repealed Local Courts Act 1982, as amended by the Justices Legislation Repeal and Amendment Act 2001.

[2-s 3] Definitions 3 (1) In this Act, except in so far as the context or subject-matter otherwise indicates or requires: accused person includes, in relation to summary offences, a defendant and, in relation to all offences (where the subject-matter or context allows or requires), an Australian legal practitioner representing an accused person. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[1], opn 4 Dec 2006]

apprehended violence order has the same meaning as in the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. [def insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[1], opn 1 Jan 2000; subst Act 80 of 2007 s 103 and Sch 2.9, opn 10 Mar 2008]

authorised officer means: (a) a registrar of a court, or (b) an employee of the Attorney General’s Department authorised by the Attorney General as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003] Note. Please see NSW Government Gazette No 109 p 6919 for appointment of authorised officer

bail has the same meaning as it has in the Bail Act 2013. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 5 of 2014 Sch 2 item 2.15[1], opn 20 May 2014]

case conference means a conference held under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 3. [def insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2018; am Act 25 of 2018 Sch 5 item 5.10, opn 29 June 2018]

case conference certificate means a case conference certificate required to be completed and filed under Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 3. [def insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2018]

54

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 34 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 54:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 3]

case conference material — see section 78(5). [def insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2018]

charge certificate — see section 66(1). [def insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2018]

Chief Magistrate means the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court appointed under the Local Court Act 2007. [def subst Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009]

committal proceedings means proceedings before a Magistrate for the purpose of committing a person charged with an indictable offence for trial or sentence. [def am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[3], opn 7 July 2003; subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[2], opn 30 Apr 2018]

court means: (a) the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Land and Environment Court, the District Court or the Local Court, or (b) any other court that, or person who, exercises criminal jurisdiction, but, subject to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, does not include the Children’s Court or any other court that, or person who, exercises the functions of the Children’s Court. [def insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[1], opn 1 Jan 2000; am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009; Act 48 of 2016 Sch 2.13[1], opn 8 Dec 2016]

Court of Coal Mines Regulation means the Court of Coal Mines Regulation established under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1982. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

domestic violence complainant, in proceedings for a domestic violence offence, means the person against whom the domestic violence offence is alleged to have been committed, but does not include a person who is a vulnerable person. [def insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[1], opn 1 June 2015]

domestic violence offence means a domestic violence offence within the meaning of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. [def insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[1], opn 1 June 2015]

exercise a function includes perform a duty. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

female genital mutilation offence means any of the following: (a) an offence under section 45 or 45A of the Crimes Act 1900, (b) an offence (including an offence under section 86 of the Crimes Act 1900) that includes the commission of, or an intention to commit, an offence under section 45 or 45A of the Crimes Act 1900, (c) an offence of attempting, or of conspiracy or incitement, to commit an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). [def insrt Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[1], opn 1 Dec 2018]

function includes a power, authority or duty. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

indictable offence means an offence (including a common law offence) that may be prosecuted on indictment.

55

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 35 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 55:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s3

[2-s 3]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s3

Industrial Magistrate means an Industrial Magistrate appointed under the Industrial Relations Act 1996. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session [def rep Act 48 of 2016 Sch 2.13[2], opn 8 Dec 2016]

intervention plan — see section 346. [def insrt Act 100 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 24 Feb 2003; am Act 100 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1[3], opn 7 July 2003]

intervention program — see section 346. [def insrt Act 100 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 24 Feb 2003; am Act 100 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1[3], opn 7 July 2003]

Licensing Court [def rep Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[1], opn 1 July 2008]

Licensing Magistrate [def rep Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[1], opn 1 July 2008]

Local Court [def rep Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009]

Magistrate [def rep Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009]

offence means an offence against the laws of the State (including a common law offence). [def am Act 67 of 2015 Sch 1.8[1], opn 24 Nov 2015]

plea offer — see section 77(1). [def insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2018]

prescribed sexual offence means: (a) an offence under section 43B, 61B, 61C, 61D, 61E, 61I, 61J, 61JA, 61K, 61KC, 61KD, 61KE, 61KF, 61L, 61M, 61N, 61O, 63, 65, 65A, 66, 66A, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66DA, 66DB, 66DC, 66DD, 66DE, 66DF, 66EA, 66EB, 66EC, 66F, 67, 68, 71, 72, 72A, 73, 73A, 74, 76, 76A, 78A, 78B, 78H, 78I, 78K, 78L, 78M, 78N, 78O, 78Q, 79, 80, 80A, 80D, 80E, 81, 81A, 81B, 87, 89, 90, 90A, 91, 91A, 91B, 91D, 91E, 91F, 91G or 316A of the Crimes Act 1900, or (b) an offence that, at the time it was committed, was a prescribed sexual offence for the purposes of this Act or the Crimes Act 1900, or (c) an offence (including an offence under section 86 of the Crimes Act 1900) that includes the commission of, or an intention to commit, an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or (d) an offence of attempting, or of conspiracy or incitement, to commit an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). [def subst Act 25 of 2005 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 12 Aug 2005; am Act 74 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2[1], opn 18 Jan 2008; Act 44 of 2017 Sch 1.9[1], [2], opn 25 Sep 2017; Act 33 of 2018 Sch 4[1], [6], opn 31 Aug 2018, Sch 4[2]–[5], opn 1 Dec 2018]

prescribed summary offence has the same meaning as in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986.

56

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 36 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 56:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 3]

prosecuting authority [def rep Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[5], opn 7 July 2003]

prosecutor means the Director of Public Prosecutions or other person who institutes or is responsible for the conduct of a prosecution and includes (where the subject-matter or context allows or requires) an Australian legal practitioner representing the prosecutor. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[5], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[1], opn 4 Dec 2006]

public (a) (b) (c)

officer means any of the following persons, if acting in an official capacity: an employee in the Public Service or the NSW Police Force, an officer or employee of a statutory body representing the Crown, an employee of a council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993, (d) a member of staff of Local Land Services, (e) the Director of Public Prosecutions, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions or Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, (f) an officer or employee of a body declared by the regulations to be a public body for the purposes of this definition.

[def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 112 of 2008 s 4 and Sch 6.3, opn 1 Jan 2009; Act 62 of 2011 Sch 3.7, opn 6 Jan 2012; Act 51 of 2013 Sch 7 item 7.8, opn 1 Jan 2014]

recorded statement — see section 289D. [def insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[1], opn 1 June 2015]

regulations means regulations under this Act. Rule Committee for a court means a person or body having power to make rules for the court. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

rules means rules made for the purposes of a court to which the relevant provision applies. [def insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 7 July 2003]

sexual offence witness has the same meaning as in section 294D. [def insrt Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[1], opn 1 Dec 2018]

summary offence means an offence that is not an indictable offence. trial Judge means the Judge before whom trial proceedings, following empanelment of a jury in proceedings on indictment, are heard. [def insrt Act 112 of 2009 Sch 1, opn 1 Feb 2010]

vulnerable person has the same meaning as it has in Part 6 of Chapter 6. [def insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[1], opn 1 June 2015]

warden’s court [def rep Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29, opn 7 Apr 2009]

Note. The Interpretation Act 1987 contains definitions and other provisions that affect the interpretation and application of this Act. [subs (1) am Act 22 of 1995 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 1 Sep 1995]

(2) Notes included in this Act are explanatory notes and do not form part of this Act. [subs (2) subst Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[6], opn 7 July 2003]

(3) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person specified in paragraphs (a)–(f)

57

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 37 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:11 bwpageid:: 57:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s3

[2-s 3]

s3

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

of the definition of public officer who purports to exercise a function as a public officer under this Act is presumed to be acting in an official capacity. [subs (3) insrt Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(4) In this Act, a reference to the empanelment of a jury is, in the case of a trial by a Judge alone, taken to be a reference to the point in time when the Judge first assumes the role of the tribunal of fact. [subs (4) insrt Act 112 of 2009 Sch 1, opn 1 Feb 2010]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 3 “Prescribed summary offences” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Public officer” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prescribed sexual offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 3.1] “Prescribed summary offences” Regulation at [29-15,010].

[2-s 3.1] [2-s 3.5] [2-s 3.10]

See cl 3 of the Director of Public Prosecutions

[2-s 3.5] “Public officer” See cl 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5870] for the list of bodies declared to be a public body for the purpose of para (f) of the definition of “public officer”. [2-s 3.10] Prescribed sexual offence The amendments made to the definition of “prescribed sexual offence” in s 3(1) by the Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Act 2005, which commenced on 12 August 2005, extend to proceedings in respect of an offence that were instituted or partly heard before the commencement of the amendments: cl 41(1), Sch 2, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-Sch 2].

[2-s 4] Regulations and rules 4 (1) The Governor may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, for or with respect to any matter that by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed or that is necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. (2) The Rule Committee for a court may make rules, not inconsistent with this or any other Act, for or with respect to the following matters: (a) any matter that is required or permitted to be prescribed by rules, or that is necessary or convenient to be prescribed by rules, in relation to the practice or procedure to be followed to give effect to this Act, (b) any matter incidental to, or relating to, any such practice or procedure. [subs (2) insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[9], opn 7 July 2003]

(3) The rules are to be made in accordance with the Act under which the court is constituted. [subs (3) insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[9], opn 7 July 2003] [s 4 insrt Act 89 of 1989 s 3 and Sch 2(2); renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[2], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[8], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 4 Regulations and rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 4.1]

[2-s 4.1] Regulations and rules See the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5000] and following, and the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9200] and following.

58

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 38 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:12 bwpageid:: 58:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 4A]

[2-s 4A] Fees 4A (1) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the following matters: (a) the fees payable to a court in relation to the conduct of criminal proceedings in the court, including fees for the following: (i) the filing or registration of any document in the court, (ii) the sealing or other authentication of any document that has been filed in the court, (iii) the issue of any document out of the court, (b) the fees payable in relation to the functions exercised by the Sheriff in relation to criminal proceedings, (c) the fees payable for administrative services provided by a registrar or other officer of the court, whether in connection with the administration of this Act or otherwise, (d) the waiver, postponement and remittal of fees. (2) Fees of the kind referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) are not payable by the Crown, or by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, with respect to any criminal proceedings prosecuted by: (a) the Crown, (b) any Minister of the Crown, (c) any person or body prescribed by the regulations or belonging to a class of persons or bodies so prescribed. (2A) Despite subsection (2), such fees are payable by any NSW Government agency or statutory body representing the Crown prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. [subs (2A) insrt Act 60 of 2012 Sch 5, opn 1 Jan 2014]

(3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the recovery by the Crown or any such person or body of any fees that would, had they been paid by the Crown or any such person or body, have been so recoverable. (4) Unpaid fees may be recovered by the person to whom they are payable, as a debt, in any court of competent jurisdiction. (5) In this section, criminal proceedings means proceedings for an offence (whether summary or indictable), and includes the following: (a) committal proceedings, (b) proceedings relating to bail, (c) proceedings relating to sentence, (d) proceedings on an appeal against conviction or sentence. [s 4A insrt Act 28 of 2005 s 6(2) and Sch 5.11[1], opn 15 Aug 2005]

59

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 39 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:12 bwpageid:: 59:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 4A

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 40 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:12 bwpageid:: 60:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CHAPTER 2 — GENERAL PROVISIONS [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[11], opn 7 July 2003]

PART 1 — OFFENCES [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[11], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 5] Certain offences to be dealt with on indictment 5 (1) An offence must be dealt with on indictment unless it is an offence that under this or any other Act is permitted or required to be dealt with summarily. (2) An offence may be dealt with on indictment if it is an offence that under this or any other Act is permitted to be dealt with summarily or on indictment. [s 5 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[8], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[12], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 5 Indictable procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 5.1]

[2-s 5.1] Indictable procedures The procedures applicable to indictable offences are found in Ch 3 commencing at [2-s 45] and following. Provisions relating to committal proceedings are found in Pt 2 of that Chapter commencing at [2-s 47] and following, and those relating to trial procedure in P 3 commencing at [2-s 121] and following. The provisions relating to the summary disposal of indictable offences in the Local Court are contained in Ch 5 commencing at [2-s 258] and following.

[2-s 6] Certain offences to be dealt with summarily 6 (1) The following offences must be dealt with summarily: (a) an offence that under this or any other Act is required to be dealt with summarily, (b) an offence that under this or any other Act is described as a summary offence, (c) an offence for which the maximum penalty that may be imposed is not, and does not include, imprisonment for more than 2 years, excluding the following offences: (i) an offence that under any other Act is required or permitted to be dealt with on indictment, (ii) an offence listed in Table 1 or 2 to Schedule 1. [subs (1) am Act 57 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 15 Nov 2007]

(2) An offence may be dealt with summarily if it is an offence that under this or any other Act is permitted to be dealt with summarily or on indictment. [s 6 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[8], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[12], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 6 Summary offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 6.1]

[2-s 6.1] Summary offences This section has to be considered in light of s 260 which provides for certain offences to be dealt with summarily unless election is made proceed on indictment, see at [2-s 260]. Similar provisions were considered in: R v Fisher (2002) 54 NSWLR 467; [2002] NSWCCA 188; BC200202699; (2002) 9 Crim LN 39 [1430]; Anson v DPP (2002) 129 A Crim R 328; [2002] NSWSC 408; BC200202513. The effect of these decisions is that ss 6

61

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 41 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:12 bwpageid:: 61:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 6.1]

s6

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

and 260 ought be construed so that both operate. The expression “required to be dealt with on indictment” in s 6(1)(c) should be read as being subject to the specific exceptions in s 260.

[2-s 7] Certain summary offences may be dealt with by Local Court 7 (1) An offence that is permitted or required to be dealt with summarily is to be dealt with by the Local Court. [subs (1) am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

(2) This section does not apply to an offence that, under this or any other Act, is required to be dealt with summarily otherwise than by the Local Court. [subs (2) am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009] [s 7 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[8], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[12] and; am Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[13], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 7 (previously s 9) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 548 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 7 Summary procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 7.1]

[2-s 7.1] Summary procedures The procedures that apply to the hearing of summary offences generally are found in Ch 4 commencing at [2-s 170] and following. Of special note is s 179 which prescribes that there is a time limit of six months from the time of the commission of the offence for the laying of an information.

[2-s 8] Prosecution of indictable offences 8 (1) All offences shall be punishable by information (to be called an indictment) in the Supreme Court or the District Court, on behalf of the Crown, in the name of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2) Such an indictment may be presented or filed whether or not the person to whom the indictment relates has been committed for trial in respect of an offence specified in the indictment. (3) This section does not apply to offences that are required to be dealt with summarily. [subs (3) am Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[3], opn 1 Jan 2000; Act 15 of 2015 Sch 2.14[1], opn 8 July 2015]

(4) This section does not affect any law or practice that provides for an indictable offence to be dealt with summarily. [subs (4) am Act 22 of 1995 s 3 and Sch 1[2]; am Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[4], opn 1 Jan 2000] [s 8 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[9], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[12], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 8 Indictments and informations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indictable offences heard summarily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ex officio indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 8.1] [2-s 8.5] [2-s 8.10]

[2-s 8.1] Indictments and informations At common law and under the repealed Justices Act proceedings were commenced by information or complaint in the Local Court and by indictment in the District and Supreme Court. Criminal proceedings are now generally commenced by a court

62

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 42 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:12 bwpageid:: 62:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 8.10]

attendance notice in the Local Court and by indictment in the trial courts. An indictment is an information signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions or a person on his or her behalf, see generally at [29-10,001]. The history of the distinction between informations and indictments was considered in Fraser v R (No 2) (1985) 1 NSWLR 680; 19 A Crim R 248 and see also R v Hull (1989) 16 NSWLR 385; 41 A Crim R 262 where the practice and effect of laying ex officio indictments were considered and see below. The function of an indictment was described in R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067 at [52] as including: (i) Informing the court of the precise identity of the offence with which it is required to deal (John L Pty Ltd v A-G (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508 at 519; 73 ALR 545; BC8701799). (ii) Providing the accused with the substance of the charge which he or she is called upon to meet, including identification of the essential factual ingredients (John L, above, at CLR 519). (iii) Enabling the court to ensure that only relevant evidence is admitted and to properly instruct the jury on the relevant law (S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266 at 284–5; 89 ALR 321). (iv) Determining the availability of a plea of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict (S v R above at 284; Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77 at 90, 110–1; 139 ALR 27; [1996] HCA 26; BC9604533). (v) To invest the trial court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the prosecution (John L, above, at 519). There can be a trial on only one indictment and a trial on two or more indictments at the same time is a nullity: Swansson v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 263; [2007] NSWCCA 67; BC200701920; 14 Crim LN 72 [2223], where there was a trial on multiple indictments each naming a different accused and two indictments against the same accused for different offences. [2-s 8.5] Indictable offences heard summarily An indictable offence can be heard and determined by a magistrate if it is referred to in Table 1 or Table 2 of the Schedule to the Act, see [2-s 259] and following. The maximum penalties where such offences are dealt with summarily are prescribed in ss 267 and 268. No time limit applies to the commencement of the prosecution of indictable offences dealt with summarily: s 270. [2-s 8.10] Ex officio indictments Subsection 8(2) preserves the power of the prosecutor to present an indictment for an offence notwithstanding that the accused was not committed for trial. For a general discussion of the history of committal proceedings and ex officio indictments see Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1; 87 ALR 618; BC8902704. The procedure on ex officio indictments has been examined by the High Court in Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75; 32 ALR 449; BC8000111. It was held that there is no legal requirement for committal proceedings prior to the filing of an indictment but the court has power to stay proceedings where injustice may occur by the absence of committal proceedings. The absence of the opportunity to test the prosecution evidence by cross-examination was a vital factor to be considered in deciding whether injustice had occurred but it is not of itself sufficient to warrant a stay: Barron v A-G (NSW) (1987) 10 NSWLR 215. The history and effect of s 6 of the Australian Courts Act 1828 considered in Grassby, above, and which permitted the commencement of a prosecution with leave of the Supreme Court was further considered in R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067 per Howie J where it was held that the section was rendered inoperative by the effect of the legislation passed in 1987 including s 126 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The history and effect of ex officio indictments were also considered in R v Hull (1989) 16 NSWLR 385; 41 A Crim R 262. The power of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to file an ex officio indictment was considered in Duffıeld v R (1992) 28 NSWLR 638; 110 ALR 323; BC9203066 where it was held that the power to file an ex officio indictment after a change of plea was valid and not inconsistent with the procedures for committal contained in the Justices Act.

63

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 43 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:13 bwpageid:: 63:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s8

[2-s 8.10]

s8

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

The Director of Public Prosecutions has power to present an indictment regardless of the fact that there may have been some defect in the committal proceedings and such a procedure will not produce an abuse of process unless it would result in unfairness to the accused at the trial: R v Butler (1991) 24 NSWLR 66; 56 A Crim R 231; Sergi v DPP (NSWCCA, Kirby P, Meagher and Handley JJA, 40518/1991, 10 September 1991, unreported, BC9101577); R v Stanton (1991) 52 A Crim R 164; BC9102279. It has been held that it was not an abuse of process for the DPP to file an ex officio indictment in the District Court in circumstances where a magistrate refused to allow the charge to be dealt with by way of indictment, when the matter had been set down for a summary hearing and after the police prosecutor indicated that there was no election to have the matter dealt with in the District Court: Iqbal v R [2012] NSWCCA 72; BC201210938; 20(6) Crim LN [3228]. Where for some reason the committal proceedings were insufficient to ensure a fair trial for the accused, rather than staying the presentation of the indictment, the court may in an appropriate case permit the calling of evidence on a voir dire hearing for the purpose of examination and cross-examination by the defence: R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337; BC8902533. The basis for such an inquiry was considered in R v Kennedy (1997) 94 A Crim R 341; BC9702759; 4(6) Crim LN [713]. The court has power to stay an indictment where the Crown elects to proceed on a less serious charge than that for which the accused was committed for trial but it would be a rare case where such power would be exercised: R v Brown (1989) 17 NSWLR 472; 44 A Crim R 385; BC8901555. The Director can present an ex officio indictment in the District Court in respect of an offence alleged against a child notwithstanding s 31 of the Children (Criminal Proceeding) Act 1987: PM v R (2007) 232 CLR 370; 240 ALR 1; [2007] HCA 49; BC200709512; 14(11) Crim LN [2304].

[2-s 9] Name in which prosecutions may be instituted 9 Any prosecution or proceedings instituted by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any offence (whether an indictable offence or a summary offence) may be instituted in either the official name or the personal name of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. [s 9 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[28], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 Sch 1[14], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 9 Power to commence prosecution on indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 9.1]

[2-s 9.1] Power to commence prosecution on indictment As to the functions and powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions see at [29-10,225]. The Attorney General retains the power exercised under the common law to commence a prosecution for an indictable offence, see at [29-10,425] and following. See generally at [7-100] and following.

[2-s 10] Indictment of bodies corporate 10 (1) Unless a contrary intention appears, a provision of an Act relating to an offence applies to bodies corporate as well as to individuals. (2) On arraignment, a body corporate may enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty” by means of writing signed by its representative. (3) If no such plea is entered the court is to enter a plea of “not guilty”, and the trial is to proceed as though the body corporate had pleaded “not guilty”. (4) A representative of a body corporate need not be appointed under the body’s seal.

64

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 44 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:13 bwpageid:: 64:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 11.1]

(5) A written statement that: (a) purports to be signed by one of the persons having the management of the affairs of the body corporate, and (b) contains a statement to the effect that a named person is the body’s representative, is admissible as evidence that the named person has been so appointed. [s 10 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[15], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 10 (previously s 59) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 360A of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 11] Description of offences 11 The description of any offence in the words of an Act or statutory rule or other document creating the offence, or in similar words, is sufficient in law. [s 11 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[17], opn 19 Apr 2002]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 11 Description of offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proof of exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 11.1] [2-s 11.5] [2-s 11.10]

[2-s 11.1] Description of offences The origin of this section was found in s 145A(1) Justices Act 1902 now repealed. There is a considerable number of cases dealing with s 145A(1) and its English counterpart. The effect of those decisions would appear to apply to the operation of s 11 and so are considered below. In order to understand the purpose of the section it is necessary to consider the situation at common law because the provision was intended to overcome the rigidity of the common law requirements for a valid information. At common law and under the Justices Act 1902 criminal proceedings were generally commenced by information. Criminal proceedings are now commenced by way of a court attendance notice, see [2-s 47] and [2-s 172], or indictment [2-s 130]. An indictment is an information, see [2-s 8]. For the purposes of Pt 2 of this Chapter, an indictment includes a court attendance notice. A court attendance notice must describe the offence and briefly state the particulars of the alleged offence: see ss 50(3) and 175(3). At common law a charge had to contain all the essential legal elements necessary to be proved together with sufficient factual particulars to indicate the time, place and manner of the defendant’s acts or omissions which formed the basis of the offence alleged. The charge had also to contain reasonable particularity as to the nature of the offence charged. It need not, however, contain all the particulars that the defendant may require for the preparation of his defence such as would be provided on an application for particulars. Generally if an information followed the wording of the statutory provision which created the offence, it was prima facie valid by reason of s 145A(1): Clayton v John L Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 344 at 349, but see Ower, Appeal of (1945) 46 SR (NSW) 51; 62 WN (NSW) 222. This is the effect of s 11. At common law an information would be defective if it failed to “identify an essential factual ingredient of the actual offence”: John L Pty Ltd v A-G (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508; 73 ALR 545. This decision was applied in Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16, where it was held that s 154A(1) would not of itself save an information which failed to specify the manner in which the offence was committed. However, the failure to provide sufficient particulars in the information was a defect to which s 30 (indictable offences) or s 65 (summary offences) of the Justices Act applied so that the information could not be dismissed on this ground provided that adequate particulars were given: Boral Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd v Magill (1993) 32 NSWLR 501

65

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 45 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:13 bwpageid:: 65:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 11

[2-s 11.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 11

at 515–18; BC9302362; R v Cassell (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Sully and Hulme JJ, 60162/96, 24 July 1996, unreported; BC9607104); (1996) 2 NSWCR 89; (1996) 3 Crim LN 50 [594]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 526; BC9806782; (1997) 4 Crim LN 51 [726]. The provisions are now found in s 16(2). The distinction between “essential factual ingredients”, the absence of which invalidates an information, and particulars generally has been noted in De Romanis v Sibraa [1977] 2 NSWLR 264 at 291 and Day v Rugala [1978] 33 FLR 208 at 212. In Lodhi v R (2006) 199 FLR 303; [2006] NSWCCA 121; BC200602710 at [88]–[94], [97]–[109], it was held that an indictment failed to specify all the essential elements of the offence. An incorrect reference in an information to the section or Act under which the offence is prescribed will not render the information invalid, even if the Act referred to has been repealed, provided that the offence is properly described in the body of the information and all the elements of the offence are referred to: Wehebe v Voulgarakis (NSWSC, Studdert J, 22 October 1991, unreported); (1991) 9 Petty Sessions Review 4363. As to the provision for stating offences by their short description see at [2-s 12]. There are a number of provisions dealing with the contents of indictments and the sufficiency of allegations for particular types of offences: see at [2-Sch 3]. [2-s 11.5] Proof of exceptions

See at [8-s 417A] and the annotations.

[2-s 11.10] Law Part Code An indictment should specify the applicable Law Part Code: Pt 75 r 3D(2A) Supreme Court Rules at [20-26,835]; Lodhi v R (2006) 199 FLR 303; [2006] NSWCCA 121; BC200602710 at [92].

[2-s 12] Short description of certain offences 12 (1) For the purposes of this or any other Act, a summary offence, or an indictable offence that may be dealt with summarily, is taken to be sufficiently stated or described if it is stated or described by the use of a short expression that describes the offence in general terms. (2) This section applies to a statement or description of an offence in any court attendance notice, warrant, subpoena, notice, order or other document. (3) Nothing in this section affects any other method of stating or describing an offence. (4) Nothing in this section affects any requirement made by or under this Act in relation to the form of a court attendance notice or any other document. [s 12 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[17], opn 19 Apr 2002]

[2-s 13] Venue in indictment 13 (1) New South Wales is a sufficient venue for all places, whether the indictment is in the Supreme Court or any other court having criminal jurisdiction. (2) However, some district or place within, at or near which the offence is charged to have been committed must be mentioned in the body of the indictment. (3) Any such district or place is to be taken to be in New South Wales, and within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the contrary is shown. [s 13 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[19], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 13 (previously s 60) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 361 of the Crimes Act 1900.

66

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 46 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:14 bwpageid:: 66:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 13 Venue in an indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 14.1]

[2-s 13.1]

[2-s 13.1] Venue in an indictment An indictment is not defective for want of “a proper or perfect venue”: s 16(1)(c). If it is contended that the offence did not occur in New South Wales and, therefore, the court has no jurisdiction, the prosecution must prove that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction on the balance of probabilities. If the question is raised the trial judge should seek a special verdict from the jury on this question before any verdict is taken on the general question of guilt: Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1; 86 ALR 1. As to geographical jurisdiction see Pt 1A of the Crimes Act [8-s 10A].

[2-s 14] Common informer 14 (cf Fines and Penalties Act 1901 sec 4) A prosecution or proceeding in respect of any offence under an Act may be instituted by any person unless the right to institute the prosecution or proceeding is expressly conferred by that Act on a specified person or class of persons. [s 14 insrt Act 99 of 1996 s 130 and Sch 2.6, opn 27 Jan 1998; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[28], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[20], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 14 Authority to commence criminal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 14.1]

[2-s 14.1] Authority to commence criminal proceedings Section 14 provides that a prosecution in respect of any offence under an Act may be instituted by any person unless the right to institute the prosecution is confined by statute. In Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Fitzsimons (2007) 176 A Crim R 28; [2007] NSWSC 836; BC200706184, it was held that the right to institute a prosecution or proceeding for an alleged breach of the Totalizator Act 1997 was expressly conferred by that Act on a specified person or class of persons and, as the prosecutor was not such a person, it was not open to him to institute the prosecution. Generally speaking, where a statute requires written consent for the institution of proceedings for an offence, the consent must be given before the proceedings are instituted: McDonnell v Smith (1918) 24 CLR 409 at 412; [1918] HCA 26; Traveland v Doherty (1982) 41 ALR 563; 63 FLR 41 at 46. As to permissibility of general consents, see Berwin v Donohue (1915) 21 CLR 1 at 24–6, 27–9, 38; [1915] HCA 79; Crichton v Victorian Dairies Ltd (1965) VR 49 at 59; R v Bacon [1973] 1 NSWLR 87 at 94–5; Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 605 at 607; 49 FLR 36; Traveland, above, at FLR 46–8; Water Board v EPA (1994) 83 LGERA 174 at 179; BC9405345; McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v EPA (NSWCCA, Cole, Sully JJA and Adams AJ, 60386/1996; 60387/1996, 25 October 1996, unreported, BC9606890) at 13–14. If the prescribed officer has not consented to the prosecution of the offences, it has been said that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings and the prosecution must fail: Gilmour, above, at ALR 607; Palos Verdes Estates Pty Ltd v Carbon (1991) 6 WAR 223 at 227; 72 LGRA 414. Where a defendant asserts the absence of consent to commence a prosection, the point may be taken by motion to quash the indictment before the commencement of the trial or may be taken at any time during the trial: Bacon, above, at 95. Whether there has been requisite consent is an issue of procedure rather than an issue which goes to the merits of substance of the case: Price v Humphries [1958] 2 QB 353 at 359; [1958] 2 All ER 725. It has been said that this is an issue for the judge and not the jury: R v Harkins (1958) VR 543 at 545–6; [1958] ALR 461. The issue of consent is not to be regarded as being in the nature of an element of an offence: Dever v Creevey; Ex parte Creevey [1993] 1 Qd R 232 at 236; (1991) ASC 56–100; Morrison v Dartbrook Coal Pty Ltd (2002) 116 IR 252; [2002] NSWIR Comm 127 at [60], [70]. If consent becomes an issue raised by a defendant, the prosecutor must prove consent was granted in order

67

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 47 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:14 bwpageid:: 67:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 14

[2-s 14.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 14

for the proceedings to be instituted to the requisite standard, namely the balance of probabilities: MacCarron v Coles Supermarkets Aus Pty Ltd (2001) 23 WAR 355 at [33]; [2001] WASCA 61; BC200100731 applying Thompson v R (1989) 169 CLR 1 at 12–13; 86 ALR 1; Dartbrook Coal, above, at [80]; Morrison v United Collierier Pty Ltd [2002] NSWIR Comm 173. The relationship between this section and s 173 of the Act was considered in Sasterawan v Morris [2007] NSWCA 185; BC200705318 (2007) 14 Crim LN 96 [2251] where it was held that section included police and public officers authorised to commence prosecutions. In Employers Mutual Ltd v Heise [2018] NSWSC 1842, it was said that the right to commence a prosecution as a common informer is an important common law right and its exclusion would have to be expressed in clear terms.

[2-s 14A] Proceedings for offences commenced by officers of ICAC or LECC 14A (1) An officer of ICAC does not have the power to commence proceedings for an offence unless the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Independent Commission Against Corruption in writing that the proceedings may be commenced by an officer of ICAC. (2) An officer of LECC does not have the power to commence proceedings for an offence unless the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission in writing that the proceedings may be commenced by an officer of LECC. [subs (2) subst Act 61 of 2016 Sch 6.11[1], opn 1 July 2017]

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the Director of Public Prosecutions may liaise with the Independent Commission Against Corruption or Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, but is to act independently in deciding to advise that proceedings for the offence may be commenced. [subs (3) subst Act 61 of 2016 Sch 6.11[1], opn 1 July 2017]

(4) In this section: officer of ICAC means a person acting in the capacity of a Commissioner, an Assistant Commissioner or officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. officer of LECC means an officer of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (within the meaning of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016). [subs (4) am Act 61 of 2016 Sch 6.11[2], opn 1 July 2017; Act 65 of 2016 Sch 3.2, opn 7 Aug 2017] [s 14A insrt Act 67 of 2015 Sch 1.8[2], opn 24 Nov 2015; am Act 61 of 2016 Sch 6.11[1], opn 1 July 2017]

PART 2 — INDICTMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[21], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 15] Application of Part 15 (1) This Part applies, to the extent that it is capable of being applied, to all offences, however arising (whether under an Act or at common law), whenever committed and in whatever court dealt with. [subs (1) am Act 82 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 2.9[1], opn 27 Nov 2003]

68

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 48 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:14 bwpageid:: 68:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 16]

(2) In this Part: indictment includes a court attendance notice or any other process or document by which criminal proceedings are commenced. [subs (2) insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[23], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 82 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 2.9[1], opn 27 Nov 2003] [s 15 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[22], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 16] Certain defects do not affect indictment 16 (1) An indictment is not bad, insufficient, void, erroneous or defective on any of the following grounds: (a) for the improper insertion or omission of the words “as appears by the record”, “with force and arms”, “against the peace”, “against the form of the statute” or “feloniously”, (b) for want of an averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved or necessarily implied, (c) for want of a proper or perfect venue or a proper or formal conclusion, (d) for want of any additional accused person or for any imperfection relating to any additional accused person, (e) for want of any statement of the value or price of any matter or thing, or the amount of damage or injury, if such value, price or amount is not of the essence of the offence, (f) for designating any person by the name of his or her office, or other descriptive appellation, instead of by his or her proper name, (g) except where time is an essential ingredient, for omitting to state the time at which an offence was committed, for stating the time wrongly or for stating the time imperfectly, (h) for stating an offence to have been committed on a day subsequent to the finding of the indictment, on an impossible day or on a day that never happened, (i) if the indictment was signed by an Australian legal practitioner who has been instructed to prosecute the proceedings to which the indictment relates on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions — for failure by the Director to authorise the Australian legal practitioner by order in writing under section 126(2) to sign indictments for and on behalf of the Director. [subs (1) am Act 75 of 2005 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 21 Sep 2005; Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[2], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(2) No objection may be taken, or allowed, to any indictment by which criminal proceedings (including committal proceedings) in the Local Court or for any other offence that is to be dealt with summarily are commenced, or to any warrant issued for the purposes of any such proceedings, on the grounds of: (a) any alleged defect in it in substance or in form, or (b) any variance between it and the evidence adduced at the proceedings for the offence charged in the indictment or warrant. Note. An adjournment may be obtained under section 40 where there is a variance between the evidence adduced and the offence charged in the application or order. [subs (2) insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[25], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 40 of 2003 Sch 1.10[1], opn 22 July 2003; Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009] [s 16 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[24], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 16 (previously s 58) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 360 of the Crimes Act 1900.

69

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 49 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:15 bwpageid:: 69:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 16

[2-s 16.1]

s 16

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 16 Statement of charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Particulars in the indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allegation of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allegation of ownership of property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amendment of indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defects in form and variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature on indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 16.1] [2-s 16.5] [2-s 16.10] [2-s 16.15] [2-s 16.20] [2-s 16.25] [2-s 16.30] [2-s 16.35] [2-s 16.40]

[2-s 16.1] Statement of charge Generally see at [2-s 11.1] as to what is necessary for the statement of a charge in either a court attendance notice or an indictment. The Supreme Court may prescribe forms of indictments for particular offences, [2-s 27]. Although forms have been prescribed in the past they have been repealed: Smith and Kirton v R (1990) 47 A Crim R 43; BC9002723. There are a number of provisions dealing with the contents of indictments and the sufficiency of allegations for particular types of offences: see at [2-Sch 3]. The statement of a charge in a count in an indictment should follow the words of the statutory provision which creates the offence, see s 11. In Smith and Kirton v R, above, a count alleging that the accused “did assault and rob” was criticised in that the offence provided that the accused was guilty if he “did rob” another person. However, the additional words were mere surplusage. Any additional allegation or circumstance not required can be ignored R v Johnson [1945] KB 419 or deleted by amendment: R v Madercine (1899) 15 WN (NSW) 235. Consideration was given to the effect of a defect in the statement of a charge in an indictment in Kahatapitiye v R (2004) 146 A Crim R 542; [2004] WASCA 189; BC200405402, where some of the charges in the indictment omitted to state that the offence was committed “without her consent” an element of the offence charged. It was held that in the circumstances of that case the charge was not a nullity and the proviso was applied to dismiss the appeal. In Tonari v R [2013] NSWCCA 232; BC201313860; 21(1) Crim LN [3308] it was held that a count in an indictment incorrectly stating an offence under s 61J of the Crimes Act by omitting certain words found in the section was not invalid. It was held that it was merely a misstatement of the particulars of the aggravation alleged, and not a misstatement of the offence. Where the statutory offence changed over the period of the alleged offending it was held that the statement of the charge in the indictment was sufficient to include both the former offence and the new offence and therefore the charge was valid: MJ v R [2013] NSWCCA 250; BC201314495; 21(1) Crim LN [3309]. In Doja v R [2009] NSWCCA 303; BC200911598; 17(2) Crim LN 23 [2680], where offences charged under s 178BB (now repealed) of the Crimes Act failed to state an element of the offence, it was held that the defect was formal for the purpose of the section as the element could be implied and the indictment was valid to give the court jurisdiction to try the charges. The case contains a lengthy consideration of what defects will result in the invalidity of an indictment. In any event the court would have dismissed the appeal as there was no miscarriage because the jury were directed as to the missing element by the trial judge. Where the relevant offence contains a statutory defence, the onus of proving which is upon the defence, s 16 permits the Crown to omit such an allegation from the charge, although it has been said that it would be preferable for the offence to be pleaded in the words of the section which creates it: R v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371 where the indictment omitted the allegation “without lawful excuse” from s 233B(1) of the Customs Act. As to a proof of an exception see [8-s 417A] and the annotations. [2-s 16.5] Particulars in the indictment The statement of charge should contain sufficient particulars so that everyone, particularly the accused, knows the nature of the charge brought

70

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 50 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:15 bwpageid:: 70:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 16.15]

against him: King v R (1986) 161 CLR 423; 67 ALR 379. The time, place and manner of the defendant’s acts or omissions must be specified: Smith v Moody [1903] 1 KB 56 at 61, 63. However, see at [2-s 16.10]. It has been stated that a count in an indictment for an offence of supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act should indicate the amount of the drug involved: R v Puciarello (NSWCCA, 4 June 1990, unreported). It is not necessary to state the overt acts relied upon in an indictment for conspiracy but the judge may order particulars: R v Mok (1987) 27 A Crim R 438. A count in an indictment should indicate the nature of the accused’s liability for the offence if possible where it is not alleged that the accused is a principal in the first degree: King v R, above. Even though the indictment appears to have sufficient particulars, the court may order that further particulars be given if the evidence indicates more than one offence: S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266; 89 ALR 321. Refusal to give particulars may lead to dismissal of charge in summary proceedings: Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; 11 ALJR 344; Ex parte O’Sullivan; Re Craig (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 291; 61 WN (NSW) 197. [2-s 16.10] Alternative counts An indictment may contain counts in the alternative and there is no error if the alternative count is more serious than the principal count: R v Maharaj (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Beazley JA and Donovan AJ, 60558/1997, 1 May 1998, unreported, BC9801519); (1998) 5 Crim LN 41 [858]. Alternative counts which are contradictory may be joined in the one indictment and left to the jury if there is a prima facie case on each charge: see R v Bellman [1989] AC 836; (1989) 88 Cr App R 252 and the discussion by Donovan AJ in R v Maharaj, above. Alternative counts can be added with leave at any time before the trial commences and it would be a rare case that it would be unfair or oppressive for the Crown to seek to rely upon an alternative count simply because it might deprive the accused of the chance of an acquittal on the principal charge: R v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8; BC200500707; (2005) 12 Crim LN 20 [1830]. [2-s 16.15] Allegation of time The date of the alleged offence should be specified but unless the date is an essential element of the offence according to the statute which creates it, or the date is made a material particular or vital by the conduct of the trial, then a mis-statement of the date will not vitiate the conviction or invalidate the indictment: R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158; R v VHP (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Handley JA and Studdert J, 60733/1996, 7 July 1997, unreported, BC9702876); (1997) 4 Crim LN 44 [710]; Director of Prosecutions (NSW) v Knight (2006) 162 A Crim R 555; [2006] NSWSC 646; BC200605296; WGC v R (2007) 233 CLR 66; 241 ALR 199; 82 ALJR 220; 179 A Crim R 193; [2007] HCA 58; BC200710770. The circumstances in which time may be of the essence of an offence, due to the statute creating the offence making time of the essence were considered in R v Stringer (2000) 116 A Crim R 198; [2000] NSWCCA 293; BC200004512; (2000) 7 Crim LN 59 [1176] where it was stated that the date will only be an essential matter for the prosecution to prove when: (i) an act is criminal only when done within a certain time of some other act or event; (ii) it is an essential ingredient of a particular offence that certain consequences should follow a particular act; (iii) it is an essential ingredient of a particular offence that the act alleged was committed between certain hours of the day or night; or (iv) the prosecution for a particular offence must be commenced within a certain time of the commission of the criminal act alleged. In that case it was held that the prosecutor could not make time of the essence simply by pleading the date of the offence and submitting to be bound by the time which had been pleaded, thus limiting the issues presented for trial regardless of the applicable law. Crennan J in WGC v R, above, observed at 109 that the conduct of a trial may have the effect of rendering a date a “material particular or vital” such that it needs to be proven. This might occur

71

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 51 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:15 bwpageid:: 71:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 16

[2-s 16.15]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 16

where the defence raise an alibi in respect of a particular date or where the complainant in a sexual assault case gives evidence that the offence occurred on one specific occasion, see: Director of Prosecutions (NSW) v Knight, above, at [28] and Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Harrison [2008] NSWSC 349; BC200802605. The indictment may be amended to insert the correct date. However, the amendment of the indictment to broaden the date of the offence can result in the alteration of the whole of the content of the evidence and result in the watering down of the defence case such as to lead to an unfair trial: R v Westerman (1991) 55 A Crim R 353; BC9101762. Where the complainant swore that the offence occurred on a particular date and the accused proved an alibi for that date, the jury would not be entitled to find that the offence occurred but on a different date than that positively sworn to by the complainant, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that it occurred on any other date: R v Dean (1932) NZLR 753, see R v Kringle [1953] Tas SR 52 and R v Kennedy (2000) 118 A Crim R 34; [2000] NSWCCA 487; BC200007416; (2000) 7 Crim LN 93 [1222] where the complainant swore that on the date of the offence she was watching a live coverage of the royal wedding. The offence can be alleged to have been committed on or about a date or between dates where the precise date is not known. In R v Hartley [1972] 2 QB 1 it was held that where “on or about” is used it is sufficient if the offence occurred within some period that has a reasonable proximation to the date alleged. But the prosecution must disclose sufficient particulars so that the defence is aware of the particular case he is required to meet so that, for example, he can raise an alibi if he has one: S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266; 89 ALR 321; BC8902699. In a court attendance notice the date on which an offence is alleged to have been committed is not necessarily material so that unless it takes the information out of time and provided an offence is disclosed, the actual date shown by the evidence may be treated as a variance under s 16(2): Bennett v Daniels (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 134; Ex parte Bignell (1915) 32 WN (NSW) 91 approved by Herron J in Parmeter v Proctor (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 48; Schreiber v Santora 1935 AR (NSW) 168 (omission of date); Booth Pty Ltd v Barlett 1956 AR (NSW) 720 (“on and since”); Ex parte Bluett; Re Nyngan Municipal Council (1929) 46 WN (NSW) 120; 9 LGR 72. Note, however, that in Smith v Moody [1903] 1 KB 56 at 61, 63, it was held that time, place and manner were essential. If time or other matter is an essential element of the offence it would appear that it must be specified or evidence at least must be given: cf Felix v Smerdon (1944) 18 ALJR 30. Where an incorrect date of the alleged offence was stated in the information but the correct date was referred to in evidence and was inside the period of six months from the date upon which the information was laid, it was treated as a variance under s 65(2) of the now repealed Justices Act 1902: Demetriou v DPP (2000) 32 MVR 485; [2000] NSWSC 1060; BC200007005. [2-s 16.20] Allegation of ownership of property Generally, the person alleged to be the owner of the property, the subject of the charge, must be named in the indictment and the ownership of property must be proved: Trainer v R (1906) 4 CLR 126; 13 ALR 53; [1906] HCA 50; BC0600010. If the owner cannot be ascertained, the property can be described as being in a person unknown to the prosecutor. However, the prosecution cannot avoid the obligation to prove ownership merely by alleging that property is in a person unknown and for larceny ownership must be proved in some person other than the accused: Trainer v R, above. If alleging property in a person unknown the prosecution must prove there is no means of ascertaining who has property in the goods: Ellis v Lawson (1987) 33 A Crim R 69; BC8700835. A mistake in the allegation of ownership can be cured by amendment: R v Murray [1906] 2 KB 385. See also cl 16 at [2-Sch 3]. [2-s 16.25] Duplicity As to whether an indictment with a count alleging a statutory offence is bad for duplicity and uncertainty see Romeyko v Samuels (1972) 2 SASR 529; 19 FLR 322 where Bray CJ said: The true distinction, broadly speaking, it seems to me, is between a statute which penalises one or more acts, in which case, two or more offences are created, and a statute which penalises one

72

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 52 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:15 bwpageid:: 72:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 16.35]

act if it possesses one or more forbidden characteristics. In the latter case there is only one offence, whether the act under consideration in fact possesses one or several such characteristics. This dicta was applied in R v Manwaring [1983] 2 NSWLR 82; 12 A Crim R 253. See also at [2-s 51.1]. The issue of duplicity in relation to multiple acts of criminality was considered by the High Court in Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77; 139 ALR 27; [1996] HCA 26; BC9604533; (1996) 3 Crim LN 70 [642]; see R v Moussad (1999) 152 FLR 373; [1999] NSWCCA 337; BC9906994; (1999) 6 Crim LN 87 [1070] but there appears to be no clear and binding ratio from the case. Indictments in relation to repeated acts of supplying drugs have been held to be valid in Hamzy v R (1994) 74 A Crim R 341 and R v F (1996) 90 A Crim R 356; BC9605125; (1996) 3 Crim LN 78. A count in an indictment is not duplicitous if it relates to one activity even though that activity may involve more than one act. Therefore, a count alleging a number of thefts from different departments of the one store is not duplicitous: R v Wilson (1979) 69 Cr App R 83. The test is whether all offences were part of the one activity or transaction. It has been held that an offence is not duplicitous if it refers to a single criminal enterprise: R v Moussad, above. Whether or not the information is duplicitous or valid will depend largely upon how the prosecution presents its case and whether the information deprived the accused of a fair hearing. In every case, the determination whether a charge is bad for duplicity or not involves a question of fact and degree and this depends upon the particular circumstances of the case: R (Cth) v Petroulias (No 1) (2006) 217 FLR 242; 177 A Crim R 153; [2006] NSWSC 788; BC200611474. As to duplicity in sexual assault cases, see [8-s 61I.7]. As to latent duplicity arising from the evidence see S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266; 89 ALR 321; BC8902699 and Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16. Where an indictment is duplicitous the prosecution can be required to particularise the specific offence relied upon and elect as to which offence the indictment relates. [2-s 16.30] Amendment of indictment An indictment may not be amended after it is presented, except by the prosecuting authority with the leave of the court or the consent of the accused: s 20. Section 20 does not affect the powers of the court under s 21 at [2-s 21]: s 20(2). An indictment cannot be amended on appeal: R v Burns (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 351; 37 WN (NSW) 77. [2-s 16.35] Defects in form and variance Subsection 16(2) has its origins in ss 30 and 65 of the now repealed Justices Act 1902. The purpose of the provision is to overcome formal and technical objections being taken to the statement of the charge or the evidence called to support the charge and so that the matter may be determined on its merits, even if it is necessary to grant an adjournment to a defendant to overcome any unfairness. An adjournment may be granted under s 40 and an order for costs can be made; see at [2-s 118]. Where an information fails to disclose all the essential legal elements of an offence, the information is invalid and the section cannot be relied upon to save it: Ex parte Burnett; Re Wicks [1968] 2 NSWR 119, and see generally Ex parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 153; 55 WN (NSW) 63. However, the section will apply where essential factual particulars have not been given, such as the time, place or the manner of the commission of the offence: Ex parte Stanton (1928) 28 SR (NSW) 516; 45 WN (NSW) 118; or where the information contained wrong particulars: R v Justelius [1973] 1 NSWLR 471; or where it contained irrelevant material; Ex parte Consolidated Press Ltd; Re Harris (1961) 78 WN (NSW) 261. Under the provisions of the Justices Act there was a doubt as to whether the information could be amended to cure defects see Ex parte Cunliffe (1871) 10 SCR (NSW) 250 but compare Crothers v Sheil (1933) 49 CLR 399; 33 SR (NSW) 525. It would now appear that s 21(1), which

73

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 53 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:16 bwpageid:: 73:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 16

[2-s 16.35]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 16

applies to a court attendance notice as well as an indictment, would permit an amendment to cure a defect in substance or form to which this section applies. It is erroneous for a magistrate to dismiss an information for lack of particulars without permitting the prosecution the opportunity to provide further particulars: Director of Public Prosecutions v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 526; BC9806782; (1997) 4 Crim LN 51 [726]. In Ex parte Kirkpatrick (1916) 16 SR (NSW) 541; 34 WN (NSW) 15, it was held that on an information charging “fraudulently appropriating a cheque belonging to another person” the failure to allege ownership of the cheque was a defect of substance and that instead of dismissing the information the magistrate should have called on the informant for further particulars and granted any necessary adjournment. In R v Justelius, above, it was held that an erroneous allegation of ownership was a defect of substance and that the judge should have amended the information by re-charging the appellant with the charge alleging ownership in the true owner. The section will also apply to an information which is bad for duplicity either on its face or because of the evidence led by the prosecution: Ex parte Williams (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 140; 26 WN (NSW) 9. In such a case the magistrate ought to ask the prosecution to elect as to the particular offence relied upon either at the outset of the hearing or during the course of the evidence: Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467; [1938] ALR 104; BC3800055. See also Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16. An incorrect reference in an information to the section or Act under which the offence is prescribed is a defect which can be ignored under the section: Wehebe v Voulgarakis (NSWSC, Studdert J, 22 October 1991, unreported); (1991) 9 Petty SR 4363. The section cannot be used where it would have the effect of creating a new charge against the defendant if to do so would defeat any limitation period applying to the charge, for example under s 179. There have been various tests applied for determining whether any variation or amendment of the charge would have the effect of creating a new offence. These include: • whether the “pith and substance” of the charge remains the same: Shultz v Pettitt (1980) 25 SASR 427; Surman v SA Police (1996) 65 SASR 421; 23 MVR 175; BC9630031; or • whether the offences have a common origin: Kennett v Holt [1974] VR 644; or • whether the new offence is cognate to the old: Hayes v Wilson [1984] 2 Qd R 114; 1 MVR 198. The fact that the evidence necessary to prove the two charges will be the same is not decisive: Gilmour v Midways Springwood Pty Ltd (1980) 33 ALR 605; 49 FLR 36. Variance “is a difference between the mode of stating and the mode of proving the same thing in substance . . . Variance points to some distinction between the allegation of time or place and the proof of it”: Martin v Pridgeon (1859) 23 JP 630, followed in Argytis v Stones 1959 AR (NSW) 145. A variance will be found where there is a mere misstatement of the name of a prosecutor: Crothers v Sheil (1933) 49 CLR 399; 33 SR (NSW) 525; or an accused: R v Lister (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 491; McLean v Case and Deignan Pty Ltd [1961] NSWR 873; 78 WN (NSW) 476; 6 LGRA 395. For other examples of variance which should be disregarded see also Parmeter v Proctor (1949) 66 WN (NSW) 48 (place); Felix v Smerdon (1944) 18 ALJR 30 (time); Platt v Sloman [1946] AR (NSW) 324; Cleland v Harris [1950] AR (NSW) 271; Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co Ltd v Packer [1955] AR (NSW) 1002. As to the misstatement of the date in the charge or a variation between the charge and the evidence see above at [2-s 16.15]. [2-s 16.40] Signature on indictment Section 16(1)(i) was enacted in 2005 to overcome the decisions in R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; 156 A Crim R 150; [2005] NSWCCA 2; BC200500703 and R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067. Indictments which would have been invalid under the Halmi and Janceski principle are taken to be valid as are the proceedings undertaken pursuant to those indictments: Sch 2 cl 47 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-Sch 2].

74

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 54 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:16 bwpageid:: 74:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 17.5]

[2-s 17] When formal objections to be taken 17 (1) An objection to an indictment for a formal defect apparent on its face must be taken, by demurrer or motion to quash the indictment, before the jury is sworn. (2) The court before which the objection is taken may cause the indictment to be amended and, in that case, the trial is to proceed as if there had been no defect. [s 17 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 17 (previously s 61) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 362 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 17 Scope of the provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application to quash an indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demurrer to an indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 17.0] [2-s 17.1] [2-s 17.5]

[2-s 17.0] Scope of the provision Consideration was given to the scope of the provision in relation to formal defects in the indictment as distinct from defects in the statement of the charge in R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067 in relation to whether the failure to sign an indictment could be a defect coming within the scope of the section in light of s 126 of the Act; cf R v Painter (1870) 9 SCR (NSW) 277. [2-s 17.1] Application to quash an indictment The accused may seek to quash an indictment on the basis that the facts do not disclose an offence, that there is no offence disclosed in the depositions and the accused was not committed for the offence: R v Jones (1974) 59 Cr App R 120 at 126; R v Wilk (1982) 32 SASR 12 at 14; R v Crawford [1989] 2 Qd R 443 at 445–6; (1988) 36 A Crim R 182, or that the count is bad for duplicity: R v Greenfield (1973) 57 Cr App R 849; [1973] 1 WLR 1151. The indictment can be quashed even after plea if there is a substantial defect: R v Rushton [1967] VR 842. Reasons need not be given for quashing an indictment: R v Keur (1973) 7 SASR 13; 2 ALR 237. An application to quash the indictment can be made before the date for the trial in accordance with District Court Rules Pt 53 r 10: see at [2-12,060]. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions against an order quashing an indictment: see Criminal Appeal Act s 5C at [20-240]. There may be an appeal against the failure of the court to quash an indictment under the Criminal Appeal Act s 5F, if such an order is held to be interlocutory for the purposes of that section: see at [20-265]. As to the power of a court to stay an indictment as an abuse of process, see [2-s 19.5]. See cl 8 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5060] with respect to the timing of an application to the Supreme Court or District Court for an order staying or quashing an indictment and any demurrer to an indictment. [2-s 17.5] Demurrer to an indictment A demurrer admits that all the statements in the count in the indictment are true but it maintains that even admitting their truth the offence cannot be made out: R v Boston (1923) 33 CLR 386; 30 ALR 185; BC2300011; R v Glynn (1994) 33 NSWLR 139; 71 A Crim R 537; BC9405320, where it was held that it was an error in determining a demurrer to have regard to depositions or other material indicating the evidence to be relied upon, and if the indictment does not contain every fact relied upon it should be amended to do so.

75

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 55 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:16 bwpageid:: 75:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 17

[2-s 18]

s 18

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

[2-s 18] Judgment on demurrer to indictment 18 The judgment against the accused person on demurrer is to be that the person “answer over” to the charge. [s 18 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 18 (previously s 62) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 363 of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 19] Traversing indictment 19 (1) No traverse is to be allowed, or trial postponed, or time to plead to the indictment given, unless the court so orders. (2) However, if the court is of the opinion that the accused person ought to be allowed time, either to prepare for his or her defence or for any other reason, the court is to postpone the trial on such terms as it considers fit. [s 19 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 19 (previously s 63) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 364 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 19 Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stay for abuse of process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temporary stay of indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 19.1] [2-s 19.5] [2-s 19.10]

[2-s 19.1] Adjournment As to the power of a court to adjourn proceedings generally, see [2-s 40]. As to costs on adjournment in the Local Court see [2-s 118] in relation to committal proceedings and [2-s 216] in relation to summary proceedings. There is generally no power to award costs for an adjournment of proceedings on indictment although an adjournment may be granted to the Crown on condition that it pays the costs of the accused; R v Mosely (1992) 28 NSWLR 735; (1992) 65 A Crim R 542; BC9203074. R v Fisher (2003) 56 NSWLR 625; 138 A Crim R 318; [2003] NSWCCA 41; BC200300810; (2003) 10 Crim LN [1541]. [2-s 19.5] Stay for abuse of process The District and Supreme Courts have power to stay proceedings on indictment by reason that the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process: Watson v A-G (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685; 28 A Crim R 332 where it was held that proceedings before the District Court should be taken in that court whether or not an indictment had been presented. There is no right to a speedy trial as distinct from a fair trial and delay without prejudice will be insufficient to justify a stay: Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; 87 ALR 577; 41 A Crim R 307; BC8902707 at CLR 70, 78; Adler v District Court (NSW) (1990) 19 NSWLR 317; 48 A Crim R 420. The decision of whether to stay an indictment requires a balance between competing interests taking into account delay, actual prejudice to the accused and the interests of the public in the prosecution of serious offences: Jago at CLR 33; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; 112 ALR 289; BC9303612. A stay is only to be granted when there is no other procedure available to overcome the unfairness to the accused: Jago, above; Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 111; 32 ALR 449. The power is to be exercised in light of the principle that the conferral of jurisdiction imports a prima facie right in a person invoking that jurisdiction to have it exercised: Jago, above at CLR 76; ALR 615.

76

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 56 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:16 bwpageid:: 76:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 19.5]

In determining whether by reason of delay, the point has been reached where the trial would necessarily be unfair, the court considers evidence of actual prejudice to the accused in the light of powers of the trial judge to relieve against such unfairness by appropriate directions and warnings to the jury: R v RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133; BC200203809. Matters giving rise to abuse of process for unfairness include: (a) the prosecution destroying evidence: Holmden and Crawford v Bitar (1987) 75 ALR 522; 47 SASR 509; 75 ALR 522; Heinze v Burnley (1992) 57 SASR 452; 17 MVR 54; (b) failure to give sufficient particulars of the offence: S v R (1989) 168 CLR 266; 89 ALR 321; (c) where an indigent accused cannot obtain legal aid on the trial of a serious offence: Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385, but see at [7-400]; (d) where pre-trial publicity is such that there cannot be a fair trial but this would only be so in an extreme case: R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592 at 623–4; 106 ALR 177; 66 ALJR 344. (e) exceptional unfairness resulting from wasted expenses caused by a discharge of jury as a result of fault by the Crown: R v Fisher (2003) 56 NSWlR 625; 138 A Crim R 318; [2003] NSWCCA 41; BC200300810; Petroulias v R (2007) 176 A Crim R 302; [2007] NSWCCA 154; BC200711442 at [23]. It is not an abuse of process to prosecute an accused who is suffering a memory loss due to brain damage caused by his own deliberate act: R v Richards (1994) 64 SASR 42; 77 A Crim R 1. However, where the accused has impairment of memory as a result of delay in prosecution, it may be sufficient to amount to such unfairness as could give rise to abuse of process: R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512; [2001] NSWCCA 173; BC200102883 but cf R v RWO, above. The fact that by reason of delay or some other event a witness who would have been called by the defence has died or is otherwise unavailable is not itself generally sufficient to justify a stay of proceedings although there may be exceptional cases where a stay would be justified: R v Adler (NSWCCA, 11 June 1992, unreported); R v Goldburg (NSWCCA, 23 February 1993, unreported, BC9302038); R v Tolmie (NSWCCA, 7 December 1994, unreported). As to the grant of a stay because of lost prosecution evidence see: R v Gilham (2007) 190 A Crim R 303; [2007] NSWSC 231; BC200712178, confirmed in Gilham v R (2007) 73 NSWLR 308; 178 A Crim R 72; [2007] NSWCCA 323; BC200710223, where it was held that proper directions to the jury on the onus and standard of proof will usually be sufficient to overcome any potential unfairness to the accused. However, in RM v R [2012] NSWCCA 35; BC201201583, the court was concerned with the loss of evidence which was relevant to an issue upon which the accused had the onus of proof: the defence of mental illness. A trial judge has no power to stay a criminal trial because the judge perceives that the operation of legislative provisions prescribing the procedure to be followed or the evidentiary rules to be applied would result in an unfair trial to the accused: R v PJE (NSWCCA, 9 October 1995, unreported); (1995) 2 Crim LN 73[474]. Entrapment will not give rise to an abuse of process although the trial judge may in the exercise of discretion reject evidence of an element of the offence: Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19; 129 ALR 41; BC9506420; (1995) 2 Crim LN 17 [352]; Massey v R (1995) 13 Leg Rep C14, where the distinction between the situation where the police commit an element of the offence charged against the accused and that where the police merely procured the offence charged was stressed, so that in the latter case a stay will only be granted where the police misconduct is particularly serious. See generally R Lancaster, “Ridgeway and Response” (1995) 2 Crim LN 54 [439]. There is no abuse of process where the Crown prosecuted the accused on the basis of evidence given by the accused in his or her defence at an earlier trial: R v Peters and Heffernan (1995) 83 A Crim R 142; BC9501749; (1995) 2 Crim LN 80 [488]. It has been held that it is not necessarily an abuse of process where the Crown wished to present a different case in respect of one accused from that which it led against a co-accused at an earlier trial: R v Halmi [1999] NSWCCA 354; BC9907457; (1999) 6 Crim LN 354 [1093].

77

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 57 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:17 bwpageid:: 77:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 19

[2-s 19.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 19

A stay may be granted where the mental health of the accused is such that it “would be out of accord with common humanity” to proceed, but the fact that the accused is unfit to be tried itself is insufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings: Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1; 79 ALJR 116; [2004] HCA 51; BC200407421; (2004) 11 Crim LN 107 [1786]. It was not an abuse of process for there to be a criminal prosecution brought against an accused after he was ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty under the Corporations Law and where the criminal charges were different in important respects from the charges in respect of which the pecuniary penalty was ordered: Adler v DPP (2004) 51 ACSR 1; 22 ACLC 1460; [2004] NSWCCA 1790; BC200406850; (2004) Crim LN 110 [1790]. Further the nature and purposes of the criminal proceedings were different from those for the pecuniary penalty and there was no double jeopardy arising from the two proceedings. Where the prosecution is brought for an improper purpose or is otherwise oppressive, it may be stayed even though the trial would be fair: Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 at 522; 107 ALR 635; BC9202694; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 392–3; 112 ALR 289, where it was held that it would be oppressive if the proceedings were foredoomed to fail. Although the court has power to stay a prosecution on the basis that the trial would be unfair because the accused was unfit to stand trial, the court should not do so without giving appropriate weight to the fact that there is a procedure available for dealing with persons unfit to be tried under Pt 2 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act [entitled the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act as of 1 March 2009]: R v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273; (2003) 143 A Crim R 503; [2003] NSWCCA 394; BC200308058; (2004) 11 Crim LN 3 [1638]. Matters giving rise to an abuse of process as being oppressive include: (a) laying an information after offering no evidence on a refusal of an adjournment and where there was an agreement by the defendant not to seek costs: R v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572; 56 A Crim R 102; BC9102515; (b) proceeding on indictment after a summary conviction for similar offences where a plea in bar would not be available: R v Viers [1983] 2 Qd R 1; Dodd v R (1991) 56 A Crim R 451; BC9101494; (c) the continued prosecution of the same or a similar charge arising from the same evidence where no plea in bar is available: Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; 156 ALR 684; [1998] HCA 57; BC9804554; (1998) 5 Crim LN 70 [902]; Donald v R (1983) 34 SASR 10; 11 A Crim R 47; R v Koolmatrie (1989) 52 SASR 482, cf R v Kite (1992) 60 A Crim R 226; (d) separate charges arising from the same facts: R v O’Loughlin; Ex parte Ralphs (1971) 1 SASR 219; Collins v Murray; Ex parte Murray [1989] 1 Qd R 614; R v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371 where it was held to be oppressive to charge the substantive offence and an attempt to commit the offence on the same indictment where the charges were not in the alternative and R v Nahlous (2010) 77 NSWLR 463; 201 A Crim R 150; [2010] NSWCCA 58; BC201002045 where a charge relying upon the possession of a sum of money was added to a charge relating to obtaining the same sum of money, but cf Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; 156 ALR 684; [1998] HCA 57; BC9804554; (1998) 5 Crim LN 70 [902] where it was held that the prosecution is entitled to lay charges that reflect the whole of the criminality and see Standen v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) [2011] NSWCCA 187; BC201106085; 18(9) Crim LN [2960] where it was held there was no abuse of process from charging both a conspiracy to import offence in relation to drugs and an offence of being knowingly concerned in an attempt to possess the same drugs; (e) where the accused was unlawfully brought within the jurisdiction: Levinge v Director of Custodial Services (1987) 9 NSWLR 546; 89 FLR 133; R v Fan (1989) 98 FLR 119; BC8901740; (f) the ill health of the accused: R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372; BC8902177;

78

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 58 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:17 bwpageid:: 78:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 19.10]

(g) where there has been an earlier stay of similar proceedings and a long delay in recharging: Gill Herron v Walton (1991) 25 NSWLR 190 at 200; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 398; 112 ALR 289; BC9303612; (h) where a co-conspirator had been acquitted on the same evidence: R v Catalano (1992) 107 FLR 31; 61 A Crim R 323; (i) where the Crown sought to rely upon records of interviews which had been ruled at an earlier trial as being involuntary: Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251; 123 ALR 417; BC9404645; (1994) 1 Crim LN 82 [283]; (j) laying an information before a decision to prosecute has been made in order to overcome a time limitation and then to delay the serving of a summons in order to obtain more evidence: Whitten v Hall (1993) 29 NSWLR 680; (k) where proceedings are foredoomed to fail: Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; 112 ALR 289; BC9506420; Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19; 129 ALR 41; BC9506420; (1995) 2 Crim LN 17 [352] cf R v Smith [1995] 1 VR 10; (1994) 73 A Crim R 384; BC9401043 where it was held that a stay would only be granted where the proceedings must inevitably fail because it is clear beyond argument that there is no evidence of an essential element. There is not necessarily an abuse of process where the accused is subjected to a third trial of the same matter: R v Fransisco and Dorain (NSWCCA, 24 August 1995, unreported); (1995) 2 Crim LN 64 [455]. It was not an abuse of process for the DPP to continue a prosecution where the complainant decided not to proceed with the prosecution when the accused was to stand trial in 1997 but wished to continue and give evidence for the Crown in 2002: L v Johnson [2003] NSWSC 1246; BC200308046; (2004) 11 Crim LN 4 [1639]. It is an abuse of process for the prosecution to rely upon admissions which have previously been held by a trial judge to be involuntary in other proceedings: Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251; 123 ALR 417; BC9404645; (1994) 1 Crim LN 82 [283]. But a trial judge’s rulings are only binding where they concern issues of fact and are not made in the exercise of discretion: R v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354; (1997) 94 A Crim R 204; BC9702652; (1997) 4 Crim LN 46 [714]. Nor are the rulings binding when the verdict in the trial is overturned: R v Edwards, above, or where the trial has aborted before verdict:R v Blair (1985) 1 NSWLR 584. Instead of staying a prosecution as an abuse of process by reason of unfairness, where a witness has improperly had access to compulsory acquired material from the accused, the court can prohibit the witness from giving evidence at the trial: R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76; BC201503262; 22(6) Crim LN [3538]. As to abuse of process in respect of the use of a nolle prosequi, see at [7-105]. A stay of proceedings is an interlocutory judgment: Tampion v Anderson (1973) 3 ALR 414; 48 ALJR 11, and does not give rise to a res judicata or any double jeopardy where the stay has been granted and the prosecution appeals: Cooke v Purcell (1988) 14 NSWLR 51; 91 FLR 350. There is an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against an order staying an indictment or a refusal to stay an indictment under the Criminal Appeal Act s 5F: see at [20-265]. See cl 8 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5060] with respect to the timing of an application to the Supreme Court or District Court for an order staying or quashing an indictment and any demurrer to an indictment. [2-s 19.10] Temporary stay of indictment An indictment may be stayed temporarily because publicity given to the particular allegation or otherwise might result in an unfair trial. In Re K [2002] NSWCCA 374; BC200205230; (2002) 9 Crim LN 72 [1476] a stay was granted where there was a risk that the jury would be unfairly influenced by publicity about other matters of a similar nature before the same trial judge. It was held that the test to be applied in determining whether to stay the trial was what the interests of justice required in the particular case. It was not necessary for the accused to show that he or she would not receive a fair trial, but rather that there was a risk that the trial would not be fair.

79

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 59 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:17 bwpageid:: 79:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 19

[2-s 19.10]

s 19

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

A temporary stay was granted of a trial until there was a change of Crown prosecutor because of the reasonable conclusion open that the particular prosecutor may not discharge her obligations with appropriate fairness and detachment: MG v R (2007) 69 NSWLR 20; [2007] NSWCCA 57; BC200702772; 14 Crim LN 85 [2237].

[2-s 20] Amendment of indictment 20 (1) An indictment may not be amended after it is presented, except by the prosecutor: (a) with the leave of the court, or (b) with the consent of the accused. [subs (1) am Act 40 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 1.10[2], opn 7 July 2003]

(2) This section does not affect the powers of the court under section 21. [subs (2) am Act 82 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 2.9[2], opn 27 Nov 2003]

(3) For the purposes of this section, an amendment of an indictment includes the substitution of an indictment. [s 20 insrt Act 7 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[7], opn 19 Nov 2001; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 20 Application to amend the indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 20.1]

[2-s 20.1] Application to amend the indictment This provision, then s 63A, was considered in R v Sepulveda [2003] NSWCCA 131; BC200302273 where it was held that the section applies to an ex officio indictment. In that case it was held that the trial judge was correct to grant leave to the Crown to amend an indictment to add on further counts of sexual assault offences against a different complainant than those on the original indictment. In R v Taylor [2003] NSWCCA 194; BC200306670; (2004) 11 Crim LN 96 [1629] it was held that a second indictment presented in the same terms as the indictment upon which the accused had originally been arraigned was a substituted indictment for the purposes of the section and was a step in the course of proceedings commenced by the presentation of the original indictment. It is not necessary to have the jury re-sworn where an indictment has been amended but there is no error in having the amended charge read out to the accused and asking the accused to plead to it before the jury: Kamm v R [2007] NSWCCA 201; BC200705305; (2007) 14 Crim LN 98 [2253]. The consent of the accused can be implied to an amendment of an indictment from the circumstances in which an accused pleads to the indictment: DJB v R [2007] NSWCCA 209; BC200711453; (2008) 15 Crim LN 22 [2346]. However it was stated that the preferable course is to follow the section for the amendment of an indictment rather than to act in an informal manner. The power to amend under the section was considered in Rajendran v R [2010] NSWCCA 322; BC201009864; 18(2) Crim LN [2853], where it was held that there was no defect in an indictment as a result of the Crown being unable to prove a circumstances of aggravation and the words were deleted from the indictment.

[2-s 21] Orders for amendment of indictment, separate trial and postponement of trial 21 (1) If of the opinion that an indictment is defective but, having regard to the merits of the case, can be amended without injustice, the court may make such order for the amendment of the indictment as it thinks necessary to meet the circumstances of the case.

80

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 60 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:17 bwpageid:: 80:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 21.1]

(2) If of the opinion: (a) that an accused person may be prejudiced or embarrassed in his or her defence by reason of being charged with more than one offence in the same indictment, or (b) that for any other reason it is desirable to direct that an accused person be tried separately for any one or more offences charged in an indictment, the court may order a separate trial of any count or counts of the indictment. (3) If of the opinion that the postponement of an accused person’s trial is expedient as a consequence of it having amended an indictment or ordered a separate trial of a count, the court may make such order as appears necessary. (4) An order under this section may be made either before trial or at any stage during the trial. (5) The following provisions apply if an order is made under this section for a separate trial or for the postponement of a trial: (a) if the order is made during the trial, the court may order that the jury be discharged from giving a verdict: (i) on the count or counts in respect of which the trial is postponed, or (ii) on the indictment, as the case may be, (b) the procedure on the separate trial of a count, and the procedure on the postponed trial, are to be the same in all respects (if the jury has been discharged) as if the trial had not commenced, (c) subject to the Bail Act 2013, the court may commit the accused person to a correctional centre. [subs (5) am Act 5 of 2014 Sch 2 item 2.15[1], opn 20 May 2014]

(6) Any power of the court under this section is in addition to and not in derogation of any other power of the court for the same or similar purposes. [s 21 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 21 (previously s 64) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 365 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 21 Amendment of indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joinder of several offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joinder of several offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Separate trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summing up in joint trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 21.1] [2-s 21.5] [2-s 21.10] [2-s 21.15] [2-s 21.20]

[2-s 21.1] Amendment of indictment An indictment may not be amended after it is presented, except by the prosecuting authority with the leave of the court or the consent of the accused: s 20. Section 20 does not affect the powers of the court under this section: see s 20(2). There is wide power to amend the indictment at any time during the trial provided no injustice is done to the accused. It seems an indictment can be amended even after verdict: R v Dossi (1918) 13 Cr App R 158. The right of the Crown to amend the indictment is extensive provided that no injustice is caused and the limited view expressed in R v Thompson (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 250 no longer applies to the present section: R v Clarke (1993) 71 A Crim R 58; R v Lars aka Larsson (1994) 73 A Crim R 91; BC9402668 at 145. Leave should be granted to amend an indictment unless the accused would be irreparably prejudiced in meeting the charge as amended and the fact

81

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 61 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:18 bwpageid:: 81:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 21

[2-s 21.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 21

that the accused may lose some tactical advantage by reason of the amendment is not sufficient prejudice to refuse leave: Borodin v R [2006] NSWCCA 83; BC200601917; (2006) 13 Crim LN 23 [2040]. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal has no power to amend an indictment: R v Burns (1920) 20 SR (NSW) 351; 37 WN (NSW) 77. In R v Johal [1973] 1 QB 475; (1972) 56 Cr App R 348 it was held that there is no rule of law which precludes amendment of an indictment after arraignment, either by the addition of a new count or otherwise. The decision was followed in R v Radley (1973) 58 Cr App R 394, where it was held that although a new arraignment was desirable, it was not necessary. However an amendment of an indictment during the course of a trial is likely to prejudice an accused and in such a case it is necessary to consider with great care whether an amendment may lead to injustice: R v Aldridge (1993) 67 A Crim R 371; BC9303907. The power to amend an indictment during the trial was considered in MM v R [2011] NSWCCA 262; BC201110755; 19(2) Crim LN [3014] where the timeframe for a number of counts of child sexual assault offences was increased to accord with evidence given in the Crown case. It was held applying Borodin, above, that no unfairness had been occasioned to the defence case. It should be noted that the decision in Maher v R (1987) 163 CLR 221; 72 ALR 351; BC8701791 is not applicable in this State as in that case the court of trial had no power to amend. If there is a defect which is not amended, the conviction will still be valid if there is no miscarriage of justice as where the defect is merely technical: Mackay v R (1977) 136 CLR 465; 15 ALR 541; BC7700072. In R v Cook (NSWCCA, Clarke JA, Campbell and Allen JJ, 60572/1989, 9 May 1990, unreported, BC9002472) it was held that an indictment for culpable driving which alleged that death was occasioned through an impact could be amended to allege that the death was occasioned through the vehicle overturning. The court stated that the power to amend was not limited to mere technicalities. The history of this type of section was considered in R v Gibson (1989) 42 A Crim R 265; BC8902102. [2-s 21.5] Joinder of several offences An indictment may contain more than one count, but each count must allege a separate and distinct offence and there must be a verdict on each: Latham v R (1864) 9 Cox CC 516. See s 23 below, as to the joinder of counts for offences of the same kind occurring within a six month period. See s 29 below as to when offences and accused persons may be joined in the one proceedings. Different offences may be contained in the one indictment if there is some connection between the crimes. This will be so if the evidence of one is admissible on the trial of the other: R v Ludlow [1971] AC 29; [1970] 1 All ER 567. See similar fact evidence at [3-s 98.10]. The indictment may contain counts in the alternative provided that those counts are not inconsistent and would lead to unfairness that cannot be overcome by appropriate directions. In R v Thomson and Dann (2002) 134 A Crim R 252; [2002] NSWCCA 400; BC200205744; (2002) 9 Crim LN 71 [1475], applying R v Bellman [1989] AC 836; (1989) 88 Cr App R 252, it was held that a count alleging a supply of a prohibited drug and an alternative count of attempting to pervert the course of justice were not inconsistent in the circumstances of that case. It was further held at [35] that the principle to be applied is that: [T]here is no rule of law that prevents the inclusion in one indictment of mutually exclusive counts so long as: (i) the evidence establishes a prima face case on both counts at the conclusion of the prosecution case; (ii) the evidence in relation to each count is substantially similar, though not necessarily identical; (iii) a direction can be made which sufficiently removes the risk that the jury will fail to understand the implications of an acquittal on the first count for the second count. The cases and principles relating to the joinder of counts were reviewed in Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24; 21(4) Crim LN [3356] where it was held that the various counts were properly joined because of the admissibility of the evidence relating to each count in respect of the other

82

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 62 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:18 bwpageid:: 82:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 21.15]

counts. It was also held that a realistic assessment of the Crown case and defence case on each count could not be made by the jury without knowledge of the other counts. The joinder of a count in the alternative on the day of the trial was considered in R v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8; BC200500707; (2005) 12 Crim LN 20 [1830] where it was held that it would rarely be the case that the addition of an alternative count would render a trial unfair or oppressive. [2-s 21.10] Joinder of several offenders Sachs LJ said:

In R v Assim [1966] 2 QB 249; [1966] 2 All ER 881,

As a general rule, it is of course no more proper to have tried by the same jury several offenders on charges of committing individual offences that had nothing to do with each other than it is to try before the same jury offences committed by the same person that have nothing to do with each other. Where, however, the matters which constitute the individual offences of the several offenders are, upon the available evidence, so related whether in time or other factors that the interests of justice are best served by their being tried together then they can properly be the subject of counts in the one indictment and can, subject always to the discretion of the court, be tried together. Such a rule, of course, includes cases where there is evidence that several offenders acted in concert but is not limited to such cases. This passage was approved in Annakin v R (1988) 17 NSWLR 202; 37 A Crim R 131; BC8801294. Where two accused are jointly charged in the one count of the indictment, the count will be valid provided that the Crown is alleging that one accused aided and abetted the offence committed by the other: R v Sperotto [1970] 1 NSWR 502; (1970) 71 SR(NSW) 334 which followed R v Scaramanga [1963] 2 QB 807; [1963] 2 All ER 852. The convictions were quashed because the case was left to the jury on the basis that the accused either acted as a principal in respect to separate offences of rape or aided and abetted the rape by the principal. The court held, overruling R v Fenwick [1954] 71 WN 102, that the single count could not be treated as both a joint and several allegation. However, in Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman [1973] AC 584 the House of Lords overruled R v Scaramanga, above, and approved R v Fenwick, above. In R v McConnell [1977] 1 NSWLR 715 the Court of Criminal Appeal followed Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman, above, and R v Fenwick, above, and did not refer to R v Sperotto, above. The High Court considered the conflicting decisions of R v Sperotto and Director of Public Prosecutions v Merriman in Mackay v R (1977) 136 CLR 465; 15 ALR 541 but did not resolve the issue. It was held that if the indictment was defective it was a mere technicality and there was no miscarriage of justice. In R v Ozcan (NSWCCA, 1 December 1988, unreported, BC8802303) a joint count was amended by the trial judge to show separate offences against each accused. The court held the amendment was appropriate but in any event, applying Mackay v R, any defect was technical. In R v Williamson and Morell (NSWCCA, 11 October 1991, unreported), the indictment was held defective applying R v Sperotto, but the court declined to apply the proviso as it held that in that case the error led to a fundamental defect in the conduct of the trial. As to accessories, see ss 346 and 347 of the Crimes Act. A judge has no power to direct that there be a joint trial of offenders and it is a matter for the discretion of the prosecuting authority whether offenders should be joined in an indictment: R v Cooper (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Ireland and Bruce JJ, 60956/97, 24 February 1998, unreported, BC9800322); (1998) 5 Crim LN 14 [818]. [2-s 21.15] Separate trials The trial judge has a discretion to grant separate trials for various counts in the indictment or for various accused persons, where a joint trial would work an injustice to the accused. The exercise of that discretion will not lightly be interfered with on appeal: R v Guldur (1986) 8 NSWLR 12; 25 A Crim R 271 but see Verma v R (1987) 30 A Crim R 441; BC8701074. The accused has an onus of showing that there is a reason for a separate trial and in an appropriate case this may require that the accused adduce evidence of the prejudice to be suffered

83

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 63 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:18 bwpageid:: 83:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 21

[2-s 21.15]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 21

so that it can be tested by the Crown: R v Bikic (2000) 112 A Crim R 300; [2000] NSWCCA 106; BC200001441; (2000) 7 Crim LN 19 [1130]. Applications for separate trials ought to be made with the formality required by the District Court Rules 1973 Pt 53 r 10, see [2-12,060]; Fitzgerald v DPP (1991) 24 NSWLR 45; 56 A Crim R 262. An order refusing or granting separate trials is an interlocutory order and may be varied or rescinded if it became inappropriate because of a change of circumstances: Saunders v R (1994) 72 A Crim R 347; BC9405308 where, after an order had originally been made for separate trials, the Crown later reindicted the two co-accused on a joint indictment where the circumstances had changed from those which had pertained at the time of the original order. Where a common purpose is alleged between the accused then prima facie they should be jointly tried: R v Kerekes [1951] 70 WN(NSW) 102, but separate trials may be appropriate where the evidence admissible against one co-accused is significantly different from the evidence against the other: R v Darby (1982) 148 CLR 668; 40 ALR 594; 56 ALJR 688. The desirability of a joint trial for joint offenders was confirmed by the High Court in Webb and Hay v R (1994) 181 CLR 41; 122 ALR 41. There should be separate trials where a direction to a jury as to the impermissible use of evidence not admissible against one of the co-accused would not be sufficient to overcome prejudice to that accused by that evidence being before the jury: Verma v R, above. Normally, such a direction will be sufficient. In R v Baartman (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Powell JA, Smart J, 60499/94, 6 October 1994, unreported, BC9405200) the court adopted as the relevant principles to be applied in determining whether to grant a separate trial a statement from Hunt CJ at CL in R v Middis as follows: 1. where the evidence against an applicant for a separate trial is significantly weaker than and different to that admissible against another or the other accused to be jointly tried with him; and 2. where the evidence against those other accused contains material highly prejudicial to the applicant although not admissible against him; and 3. where there is a real risk that the weaker Crown case against the applicant will be made immeasurably stronger by reason of the prejudicial material, A separate trial will usually be ordered in relation to the charges against the applicant. The applicant must show that a positive injustice would be caused to him in a joint trial. In R v Pham [2004] NSWCCA 190; BC200404890; (2004) 11 Crim LN 77 [1748], it was said that “immeasurably” in the third proposition from R v Middis meant: “significant, though incommensurable”. The starting point is that the inadmissible, prejudicial material is completely irrelevant. If, when placed on the scales, it would be likely to turn a potential acquittal to a conviction then this would . . . amount to “positive injustice”. The need for separate trial of offences involving sexual assaults was considered in De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1; 61 ALJR 1 where some members of the High Court considered that special rules might apply in such cases, but it seems that ultimately the question is one of whether the accused could have a fair trial: Annakin v R (1988) 17 NSWLR 202; 37 A Crim R 131; BC8801294. Where there is a real possibility of concoction between complainants in a sexual assault trial the judge should order that there be separate trials: Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292; 81 ALR 225 and R v ACK (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Studdert and Dowd JJ, 60601/1994, 22 April 1996, unreported, BC9601665); (1996) 3 Crim LN 30 [561], where it was held that the possibility of concoction was a matter which had to be considered by the trial judge when determining whether to admit evidence of offences against more than one complainant. An application for separate trials on the basis that there was the possibility of concoction between the complainants should be determined in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules of the District Court and the admissibility of

84

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 64 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:18 bwpageid:: 84:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 23]

evidence should only be dealt with by the trial judge after arraignment of the accused: R v GLC [2000] NSWCCA 99; BC200001596; (2000) 7 Crim LN 28 [1138]. Separate trials should have been granted where there were a number of complainants but some were making allegations of significantly more seriousness than others: R v Barton [2004] NSWCCA 229; BC200404319; (2004) 11 Crim LN 60 [1716]. As to separate trials of co-conspirators, see Domican v R (1989) 43 A Crim R 24. It has been held that where one co-accused will attempt to exculpate himself at the expense of another co-accused, the “cut-throat” defence, it is normally appropriate that there be a joint trial: R v Beavan (1952) 69 WN (NSW) 140 applied in Annakin v R, above. In Ignjatic v R (1993) 68 A Crim R 333 it was held that the existence of a cut-throat defence is not a reason to reject a joint trial and although there may be occasions when it would be appropriate to order a separate trial in such a situation they would be infrequent. The desirability of a joint trial in such a case to avoid inconsistent verdicts was affirmed in Webb and Hay v R, above, and applied in R v Fernando [1999] NSWCCA 66; BC9901709 whether the authorities are reviewed. See generally M D Finlay, “Some Problems in Joint Criminal Trials”, 15 Crim LJ 239. It has been doubted that a court has any jurisdiction to order separate trials in respect of alternative counts in an indictment: R v Lykouras [2005] NSWCCA 8; BC200500707; (2005) 12 Crim LN 20 [1830]. [2-s 21.20] Summing up in joint trial There is a need in joint trials for the trial judge in the summing up to carefully separate the evidence relevant and admissible against each of the accused and to present the case against each of the accused separately, and it is not enough merely to direct the jury that they must consider the case against each accused separately: R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; 59 A Crim R 445. Where there are matters of prejudice arising by reason of the case of a joint accused, the trial judge should specifically warn the jury to ignore those matters of prejudice when considering the case of the other accused: R v Taouk (NSWCCA, Mahoney JA, Hunt CJ at CL, Badgery-Parker J, 17 December 1992, unreported, BC9203128).

[2-s 22] Amended indictment 22 (1) If any indictment is amended, a note of the order for amendment is to be endorsed on the indictment, and the indictment in its amended form is to be treated as the indictment for the purposes of the trial and all proceedings in connection with or consequent on the trial. (2) Any verdict or judgment given after the amendment of an indictment is to have the same force and effect as if the indictment had originally been in its amended form. (3) If it is necessary at any time to draw up a formal record of an indictment, the record may be drawn up in the words and form of the amended indictment, without notice of the fact of the amendment. [s 22 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 22 (previously s 65) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in ss 366-368 of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 23] Indictment may contain up to 3 similar counts 23 (1) Up to 3 counts may be inserted in the same indictment, against the same person, for distinct offences of the same kind committed against the same person. (2) This section does not apply if more than 6 months have elapsed between the first and last of the offences.

85

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 65 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:19 bwpageid:: 85:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 23

[2-s 23]

s 23

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(3) Nothing in this section affects the right of the Crown to insert alternative counts in any indictment. [s 66 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 23 (previously s 66) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 370 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 23 Joinder of separate offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Separate trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 23.1] [2-s 23.5] [2-s 23.10]

[2-s 23.1] Joinder of separate offences As to when it is appropriate to join offences in separate counts in an indictment, see at [2-s 21.15] and see s 29 which provides for situations where more than one offence may be heard at the one time. [2-s 23.5] Scope of section The provisions of the section were formerly found in s 370 of the Crimes Act and cases concerning that section would apply to this section. The section is facultative, not limiting and it is not to be taken as limiting the Crown in cases to which it does not apply. The Crown may not be put to election or separate trials ordered in the circumstances and subject to the qualifications set out in the section. It does not prohibit the inclusion in one indictment of a greater number of counts or of counts otherwise outside the terms of the section: R v Johnson (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Clarke AJA and Studdert J, 60262/1989, 3 July 1990, unreported, BC9002976) applying Verma v R (1987) 30 A Crim R 441; BC8701074 and R v Haas (NSWCCA, 30 June 1972, unreported) and R v Ingivald (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Lee CJ and Campbell J, 60101/1986, 14 April 1989, unreported, BC8902289). The history of this section was considered in R v Quinn (NSWCCA, 13 June 1991, unreported) where it was held that a trial judge was not bound to force the prosecution to elect as to which count it would proceed, merely because of a defence application that the Crown elect. [2-s 23.10] Separate trials

As to applications for separate trial see [2-s 21.15].

[2-s 24] Accessories may be charged together in one indictment 24 Any number of accessories (whether before or after the fact) may be charged with substantive serious indictable offences in the same indictment, and may be tried together, even though the principal offender is not included in the indictment, not in custody or not amenable to justice. [s 24 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 24 (previously s 67) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 371 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 24 Accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 24.1] Accessories the fact see [6-105].

[2-s 24.1]

As to accessories before the fact see [6-100]. As to accessories after

86

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 66 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:19 bwpageid:: 86:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 27]

[2-s 25] Indictment charging previous offence also 25 In an indictment against a person for an offence committed after the person was convicted of some previous offence (whether indictable or otherwise) it is sufficient, after charging the subsequent offence, to state that the accused person was (at a specified time and place) convicted of the previous offence, without particularly describing the previous offence. [s 25 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 25 (previously s 68) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 372 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 25 Indictments alleging previous conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 25.1]

[2-s 25.1] Indictments alleging previous conviction As to the procedure to be adopted in cases where the charge relates to an offence committed after a previous conviction for a similar offence, see [2-s 152].

[2-s 26] Description of written instruments 26 If: (a) an indictment relates to an instrument that is written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, or (b) it is necessary to make an averment in an indictment with respect to an instrument that is written or printed, or partly written and partly printed, it is sufficient to describe the instrument by any name or designation by which it is usually known, or by its purport, without setting out a copy of the instrument, or otherwise describing the instrument, and without stating the value of the instrument. [s 26 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[26], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 26 (previously s 69) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 374 of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 27] Supreme Court rules may prescribe forms of indictments 27 (1) Without limiting the rule-making powers conferred by the Supreme Court Act 1970, rules may from time to time be made under that Act prescribing forms of indictments, records, informations, depositions, convictions, warrants and processes in all courts for any offence. (2) Any form prescribed by those rules is taken to be sufficient for the purpose, and to sufficiently state the offence, for which it is prescribed. [s 27 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[29], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[27], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 27 (previously s 85) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 567 of the Crimes Act 1900.

87

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 67 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:19 bwpageid:: 87:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 27

[2-s 28]

s 28

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

PART 3 — CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[28], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 28] Application of Part and definition 28 (1) This Part applies, to the extent that it is capable of being applied, to all offences, however arising (whether under an Act or at common law), whenever committed and in whatever court dealt with. (2) In this Part: Judge includes a Magistrate, a Children’s Court Magistrate, an Industrial Magistrate and any other person of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. [def am Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29, opn 7 Apr 2009; Act 48 of 2016 Sch 2.13[3], opn 8 Dec 2016] [s 28 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[29], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[2], opn 1 July 2008]

[2-s 29] When more than one offence may be heard at the same time 29 (1) A court may hear and determine together proceedings related to 2 or more offences alleged to have been committed by the same accused person in any of the following circumstances: (a) the accused person and the prosecutor consent, (b) the offences arise out of the same set of circumstances, (c) the offences form or are part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character. (2) A court may hear and determine together proceedings related to offences alleged to have been committed by 2 or more accused persons in any of the following circumstances: (a) the accused persons and the prosecutor consent, (b) the offences arise out of the same set of circumstances, (c) the offences form or are part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character. (3) Proceedings related to 2 or more offences or 2 or more accused persons may not be heard together if the court is of the opinion that the matters ought to be heard and determined separately in the interests of justice. [s 29 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[29], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 29 Joinder of offences and co-accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 29.1]

[2-s 29.1] Joinder of offences and co-accused As to the circumstances in which more than one offence can be determined or more than one accused person can be tried in the one proceedings see above at [2-s 21.5] and [2-s 21.10]. As to when separate trials are appropriate see at [2-s 21.15].

88

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 68 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:19 bwpageid:: 88:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 31]

[2-s 30] Change of venue 30 In any criminal proceedings, if it appears to the court: (a) that a fair or unprejudiced trial cannot otherwise be had, or (b) that for any other reason it is expedient to do so, the court may change the venue, and direct the trial to be held in such other district, or at such other place, as the court thinks fit, and may for that purpose make all such orders as justice appears to require. [s 30 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[10], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[30]; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[31] and [32], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 30 (previously s 13) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 577 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 30 Change of venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 30.1] [2-s 30.1] Change of venue The history, construction and operation of s 30 were considered in R v Turnbull (No 1) [2016] NSWSC 189; BC201604060, where it was said that: (a) cases which have emphasised the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General with respect to trial venue are no longer apt, given the absence of any function of the Attorney General concerning selection of trial venue in the contemporary criminal justice system (at [61]); (b) the presumption in favour of a local trial is a rule of practice and not a rule of law (at [68]); (c) each application for change of venue (or for trial other than a local trial) falls to be considered on its own merits, without preconceptions; it is not necessary to show exceptional circumstances — what must be shown is that it is necessary for the purpose of securing a fair and impartial trial (at [69]); (d) an assessment of what is “expedient” (s 30(b)) in a particular case will involve a practical consideration of matters bearing upon the balance of convenience for the purpose of a jury trial (at [71]–[72]). Where an accused person seeks a change of venue upon the basis of adverse media publicity in the local area, he or she bears the onus of demonstrating to the court that a fair or unprejudiced trial cannot otherwise be had: R v Rawlinson (2013) 246 A Crim R 1; [2013] NSWSC 1722; BC201319199 at [10]; R v Dasilva [2015] NSWSC 1909; BC201513520 at [35]; Da Silva v R [2016] NSWCCA 40; BC201605196. In considering a change of venue application, on the basis of media publicity, the court should keep in mind that contemporary jurors are independent, and take seriously their oaths or affirmations to deal with a matter in accordance with the evidence — the days when juries were regarded as fragile, and open to the influence of what they may read in the media, are long gone: R v Jamal (2008) 72 NSWLR 258 at 261–2; [2008] NSWCCA 177; 191 A Crim R 1; BC200806771 at [17], [21]; Dupas v R (2010) 241 CLR 237 at 247–9; 267 ALR 1; [2010] HCA 20; BC201004003 at [26]–[29]; R v Dasilva at [41]–[42].

[2-s 31] Abolition of accused person’s right to make unsworn statement or to give unsworn evidence 31 Any rule of law, procedure or practice that permits a person who is charged with the commission of a criminal offence to make an unsworn statement or to give unsworn evidence in answer to the charge is abolished. [s 31 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[33], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 31 (previously s 95) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 404A of the Crimes Act 1900.

89

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 69 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:19 bwpageid:: 89:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 31

[2-s 31.1]

s 31

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 31 Unsworn statement by the accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 31.1]

[2-s 31.1] Unsworn statement by the accused Only a person who was charged with an offence before 10 June 1994 is entitled to make a statement from the dock. An accused may make an unsworn statement and then give evidence, but cannot do so after he has given or called evidence R v Attard [1970] 1 NSWR 750, unless a bona fide mistake has occurred: R v Shortus (1917) 17 SR (NSW) 66. Nor can he, after giving a statement, swear on oath that what he said in the statement was true: R v Tangmashuk (1986) 7 NSWLR 551. The statement must be oral: R v Morrison (1889) 10 LR (NSW) 197 although quaere whether it can be read: R v Tyford (1893) 14 LR (NSW) 51. If the accused gives evidence he can be cross-examined about his statement either at that trial or at a later trial: R v Lang [1965] NSWR 1313. The Crown can adduce evidence of the contents of the accused’s statement given at a previous trial whether or not he gives evidence at the later trial: Wong Kam-Ming v R [1980] AC 247; [1979] 1 All ER 939; Stewart v R (1921) 29 CLR 234; 27 ALR 173; BC2100042. An unsworn statement may be contradicted by evidence given at an earlier occasion: R v Coulter [1914] 31 WN (NSW) 21. Where the accused has given evidence on a voir dire as to the admissibility of a confession and the evidence has been admitted, the evidence on the voir dire may be used to rebut the statement given by the accused: Wong Kam-Ming v R [1980] AC 247; [1979] 1 All ER 939; R v Franklin (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Handley JA and Studdert J, 60197/1989, 17 September 1990, unreported, BC9001999); R v Mansfield (NSWCCA, 17 February 1991, unreported). The unsworn statement has evidentiary value and can be used to prove facts in issue: Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619; 17 ALR 566; [1911] HCA 66; BC1100014; R v Avery [1965] NSWR 1419 but it is not evidence in the same sense as statements made by witnesses on oath: Jackson v R (1918) 25 CLR 113; [1918] HCA 37. In practice considerable latitude is given to an accused person in giving a statement so that often it will not conform to the rules of evidence: R v Kilby (No 1) [1970] 1 NSWR 158. The statement of the accused is not admissible against a co-accused because the accused cannot be cross-examined: R v Simpson [1956] VLR 490; ALR 623; R v Evans [1962] SASR 303. The proper direction in regard to the unsworn statement is that “the jury should take the prisoner’s statement as prima facie a possible version of the facts and should consider it with the sworn evidence giving it such weight as it appears to be entitled to in comparison with such facts as are clearly established by the sworn evidence”: Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619; 17 ALR 566; [1911] HCA 66; BC1100014. The jury can also be told: “That statement is something which the law requires you to take into consideration together with the evidence, but it is not in itself evidence in the same sense as a statement of a witness given upon oath; it is not subject in any way to test by cross-examination”: Jackson v R (1918) 25 CLR 113; [1918] HCA 37.

[2-s 32] Indemnities 32 (1) The Attorney General may, if of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, grant a person an indemnity from prosecution (whether on indictment or summarily): (a) for a specified offence, or (b) in respect of specified acts or omissions. (2) If the Attorney General grants such an indemnity, no proceedings may thereafter be instituted or continued against the person in respect of the offence or the acts or omissions. (3) Such an indemnity may be granted conditionally or unconditionally.

90

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 70 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:20 bwpageid:: 90:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 33]

(4) Such an indemnity may not be granted in respect of a summary offence that is not a prescribed summary offence, unless the Attorney General has consulted the Minister administering the enactment or instrument under which the offence is created. [s 32 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[25], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[34], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 32 Power of the Director of Public Prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indemnities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 32.1] [2-s 32.5]

[2-s 32.1] Power of the Director of Public Prosecutions The Director may not grant an indemnity but may request that the Attorney General do so: see s 19(1)(a) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act at [29-10,285]. See paragraph 17 of the Prosecution Guidelines of the NSW DPP at [28-25,085] concerning the grant of indemnities under s 32. [2-s 32.5] Indemnities As to the history of the prerogative of the Attorney General to give an immunity see R v D’Arrigo [1994] 1 Qd R 603 at 608; (1991) 58 A Crim R 71; R v Stead [1994] 1 Qd R 665 at 668–9; (1992) 62 A Crim R 40. An indemnity is not a pardon but an agreement not to prosecute (although not strictly binding): R v Milnes and Green (1983) 33 SASR 211; R v Georgiadis [1984] VR 1030 and see also R v McDonald [1980] 2 NZLR 102; [1983] NZLR 252 2 NZLR 102 (CA), NZLR 252 (PC). The matters which should be addressed in any request to the Attorney General for an immunity are set out in the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Guideline 11 at [28-30,085]. Where the Crown has indemnified a witness, it should be the routine practice to show the indemnity to the person before his evidence is taken: R v MacDonald [1983] AC 252. The DPP’s Guidelines require that the prosecution reveal the existence of any indemnity to the defence before the witness gives evidence: see Guideline 10 at [28-30,085]. The court will give the immunity its widest meaning: R v Georgiadis, above. A court has no power to reject evidence of a witness simply because the witness had been indemnified, although there may be a discretion to reject that evidence but such a discretion could only be used in very exceptional circumstances: R v McLean and Funk; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1991] 1 Qd R 231 at 242–6, 252–5; (1990) 47 A Crim R 240; applied in R v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153; 60 A Crim R 305, disapproving R v Pipe (1966) 51 Cr App Rep 17. The jury should be told of the grant of an indemnity and what is its effect: R v Checconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160; BC8801781 at 171; R v Falzon (No 2) [1993] 1 Qd R 618. An indemnity given by the Attorney General in respect not only of offences which had been committed but also of offences to be committed in the future has been severely criticised and a conviction based upon evidence of the indemnified witness quashed: R v D’Arrigo, above, and R v Stead, above. As to “use derivative use” indemnities and undertakings, see Rogan v Hyde (1995) 84 A Crim R 519; BC9506821.

[2-s 33] Undertakings 33 (1) The Attorney General may, if of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, give to a person an undertaking that: (a) an answer that is given, or a statement or disclosure that is made, by the person in the course of giving evidence in specified proceedings, or (b) the fact that the person discloses or produces a document or other thing in specified proceedings, being proceedings for an offence against a law of the State (whether an indictable offence or a summary offence), will not be used in evidence against the person.

91

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 71 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:20 bwpageid:: 91:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 33

[2-s 33]

s 33

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(2) If the Attorney General gives such an undertaking: (a) an answer that is given, or a statement or disclosure that is made, by the person in the course of giving evidence in the specified proceedings, or (b) the fact that the person discloses or produces a document or other thing in the specified proceedings, is not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings, other than proceedings in respect of the falsity of evidence given by the person. (3) Such an undertaking may be given conditionally or unconditionally. (4) Such an undertaking may not be given in respect of a summary offence that is not a prescribed summary offence, unless the Attorney General has consulted the Minister administering the enactment or instrument under which the offence is created. [s 33 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[25], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[33], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 33 Power of Director of Public Prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of undertaking not to use evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 33.1] [2-s 33.5]

[2-s 33.1] Power of Director of Public Prosecutions The Director has no power to grant an undertaking under this section but may request that the Attorney General do so see: s 19(1)(b) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 at [29-10,285]. See paragraph 17 of the Prosecution Guidelines of the NSW DPP at [28-25,085] concerning the grant of undertakings under s 33. [2-s 33.5] Effect of undertaking not to use evidence The privilege against self-incrimination subsists even in the face of an indemnity against the use of the evidence of a witness, so that in order for the indemnity to effectively remove the privilege it must preclude resort to evidence discovered as a result of the use of the evidence: Registrar, Court of Appeal (NSW) v Craven (No 1) (1994) 126 ALR 668; 77 A Crim R 410; BC9403328 applying Sorby v Cth (1983) 152 CLR 281; 46 ALR 237; BC8300067. However it has been held that the Attorney General can bind himself in honour not to use the evidence notwithstanding that the area is not covered by s 33 such that the claim of privilege will be denied on the basis that there is no real or appreciable risk of a prosecution by reason of the giving of the evidence: Saffron v FCT (No 1) (1992) 109 ALR 695 at 700. See also Ganin Burden and Creswell v NSW Crime Commission (1993) 32 NSWLR 423; 70 A Crim R 417. As to “use derivative use” indemnities and undertakings, see Rogan v Hyde (1995) 84 A Crim R 519; BC9506821.

[2-s 34] Practice as to entering the dock 34 The Judge may order the accused person to enter the dock or other place of arraignment or may allow him or her to remain on the floor of the court, and in either case to sit down, as the Judge considers appropriate. [s 34 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[35], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 34 (previously s 93) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 400 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 34 Practice as to accused entering the dock and standing when the jury and judge enter and depart the courtroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 72 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:20 bwpageid:: 92:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 34.1]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 36.1]

[2-s 34.1] Practice as to accused entering the dock and standing when the jury and judge enter and depart the courtroom The history and proper construction of s 34 were considered in R v Dirani (No 7) [2018] NSWSC 945; BC201813258 in the context of unsuccessful applications by an accused person in a terrorist trial to be permitted during the trial to sit in the body of the courtroom and not the dock and to be excused from compliance with the obligation to stand at all times required of accused persons during a jury trial.

[2-s 35] Right to inspect depositions on trial 35 An accused person is entitled on his or her trial to inspect, without fee, all depositions taken against the person and returned to, or held by, the court before which he or she is on trial. [s 35 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[35], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 35 (previously s 94) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 403 of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 36] Representation and appearance 36 (1) A prosecutor or accused person may appear personally or by an Australian legal practitioner or other person empowered by an Act or other law to appear for the prosecutor or accused person. [subs (1) am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[1], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(2) A prosecutor who is a police officer may appear personally or by a person permitted by subsection (1) or by a police prosecutor. [s 36 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 36 Representation of accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation of prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 36.1] [2-s 36.5]

[2-s 36.1] Representation of accused The section does not give the accused a right to be provided with counsel at public expense but a trial for a serious offence would normally be unfair where an indigent accused is not legally represented through no fault of his or her own: Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385; BC9202663; Attorney-General (NSW) v Milat (1995) 37 NSWLR 370; BC9505404, where the extent of the principles and their relationship with the provision of legal aid are considered. The requirement that there be no fault on the part of the accused does not indicate that every instance of misbehaviour would automatically preclude an entitlement to a stay or that the power to grant a stay is excluded just because of some contributory fault on the part of the accused: Craig v SA (1995) 184 CLR 163; 131 ALR 595; [1995] HCA 58; BC9506437. What must be looked at is the reasonableness of the conduct of the accused in all the circumstances: R v Kennedy (1997) 94 A Crim R 341; BC9702759; (1997) 4 Crim LN 46 [712] where the decision in Craig v State of South Australia was considered. As to the right to “legal assistance of own choosing” under article 143(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, see R v Sandford (1994) 33 NSWLR 172; BC9405309 where it was held that the right was intended only to indicate that the accused has the means to choose his own legal assistance rather than have it assigned to him or her, and the right is not an absolute one. An accused is not entitled to an adjournment when he unjustifiably withdrew instructions from counsel at the commencement of a trial: R v Greer (1992) 62 A Crim R 442; BC9201672. See also Frawley v R (1993) 69 A Crim R 208; 18 Crim LJ 165 where it was held that there was no miscarriage of justice where the accused was unrepresented by reason of his own conduct.

93

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 73 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:21 bwpageid:: 93:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 36

[2-s 36.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 36

There is no right to an adjournment where the accused has neglected to arrange representation although the trial judge should seriously consider whether to proceed with the trial: Small v R (1994) 33 NSWLR 575; 72 A Crim R 462; BC9405328. It is the responsibility of the accused to show that the absence of representation is through no fault of his or hers: see R v Batiste (1994) 35 NSWLR 437; 77 A Crim R 266; BC9403428; (1995) 2 Crim LN 6 [330]. The accused has no right to be assisted by a person who is not appearing for him or her (a “McKenzie friend”): Smith v R (1985) 159 CLR 532; 71 ALR 631; BC8501047; R v Burke [1993] 1 Qd R 166; (1991) 56 A Crim R 242. Clause 5 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5045] provides for filing of a notice of appearance. See at [7-405] as to the unrepresented accused. [2-s 36.5] Representation of prosecutor Proceedings for indictable offence are generally conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director is generally represented by a member of the office of the solicitor for public prosecutions or a Crown prosecutor. Generally see at [29-10,230] and as to Crown prosecutors at [29-5200] and following. Although an unqualified police prosecutor may be allowed to appear the “police prosecutor in a court of petty sessions is not, in relation to an informant, in a like position to that of a solicitor of a barrister preparing for litigation on behalf of his client”. Hence communications between a police prosecutor and his instructing officer are not privileged: Ex parte Dustings; Re Jackson (1967) 87 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 98; [1968] 1 NSWR 257 at 262 per Walsh JA (CA). In Maddison v Goldrick [1976] 1 NSWLR 651 at 664–6, it was held that no legal professional privilege attached to a “police brief” where a police prosecutor was appearing for the informant as no solicitor-client relationship existed.

[2-s 36A] Representation and appearance in penalty notice matters 36A (1) In any criminal proceedings relating to an offence for which a penalty notice was issued under this or any other Act, the prosecutor of the offence may be represented and appear by a police prosecutor. (2) Nothing in this section: (a) requires a police prosecutor to represent or appear for any person, or (b) prevents any person from appearing personally, or being represented and appearing by an Australian legal practitioner or other person empowered by an Act or other law to appear for the person, in any proceedings. [s 36A insrt Act 40 of 2008 s 4 and Sch 2.1, opn 25 June 2008]

[2-s 37] Conduct of case 37 (1) The prosecutor’s case may be conducted by the prosecutor or by the prosecutor’s Australian legal practitioner or any other person permitted to appear for the prosecutor (whether under this or any other Act). [subs (1) am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[4], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(2) The accused person’s case may be conducted by the accused person or by the accused person’s Australian legal practitioner or any other person permitted to appear for the accused person (whether under this or any other Act). [s 37 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[4], opn 4 Dec 2006]

[2-s 38] Hearing procedures to be as for Supreme Court 38 In any proceedings for an offence (other than in the Supreme Court for an indictable offence), the procedures and practice for the examination and

94

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 74 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:21 bwpageid:: 94:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 40.1]

cross-examination of witnesses, and the right to address the court on the case in reply or otherwise, are, as far as practicable, to be conducted in accordance with Supreme Court procedure for the trial of an indictable offence. [s 38 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 38 Trial procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 38.1]

[2-s 38.1] Trial procedures As to the procedures of a criminal trial before the District or Supreme Court see generally Trial Procedures at [7-001] and following. The scope of this section in relation to the procedures for making submissions and addresses in the Local Court was considered in Mason v Lyon [2005] NSWSC 804; BC200505736; (2005) 12 Crim LN 64 [1915]. The proper manner in which to conduct a voir dire hearing before a magistrate was discussed in Director of Public Prosecutions v Ridley (2015) 73 MVR 125; [2015] NSWSC 1478; BC201509786; 23(3) Crim LN [3654].

[2-s 39] Recording of evidence 39 (1) The evidence of each witness in criminal proceedings must be recorded. (2) Rules may be made for or with respect to the manner in which the evidence may be recorded and the authentication of evidence or of transcripts of evidence given in proceedings. [s 39 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 40] Adjournments generally 40 (1) A court may at any stage of criminal proceedings adjourn the proceedings generally, or to a specified day, if it appears to the court necessary or advisable to do so. (2) An adjournment may be in such terms as the court thinks fit. (3) A matter that is adjourned generally must be listed before the court or a registrar not later than 2 years after the adjournment. (4) Without limiting subsection (1), a court may, at the request of an accused person, adjourn criminal proceedings if it appears to the court that a variance between any process or document by which the proceedings were commenced and the evidence adduced in respect of the offence charged in that process or document is such that the accused person has been misled by the variance. [s 40 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 40 Adjournment of proceedings on indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 40.1]

[2-s 40.1] Adjournment of proceedings on indictment Whether or not an adjournment should be granted is a matter which lies within the discretion of the trial judge. The judge is not confined to the interests of the accused but the interests of justice as well: R v Cox [1960] VR 665, approved in R v Barca (NSWCCA, 17 August 1978, unreported). An appeal based upon a judge’s refusal to grant an adjournment will be allowed only where it has been established that the judge has erred in the proper exercise of discretion in accordance with the principles in House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504–505; 10 ALJR 202; BC3690121; Jamal v DPP [2013] NSWCA 355; BC201314135 at [52]. It is basic to the rules of procedural fairness that an accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her own case, which necessarily includes a reasonable opportunity to

95

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 75 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:21 bwpageid:: 95:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 40

[2-s 40.1]

s 40

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

prepare that case before being called upon to present it. The appearance that justice has been done is particularly important in a criminal trial, but nonetheless some limitation is required to be placed upon the right of an accused to delay the trial to prepare his or her case: R v Alexandroia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286 at 290; BC9505041; Jamal v DPP at [54]. A trial judge is entitled to take into account the strong public interest that, once fixed for hearing upon the basis that the parties were ready to proceed, a criminal trial should ordinarily proceed with expedition: R v Alexandroia at 291. The significance of this consideration has been reinforced by the enactment of the case management provisions in ss 134–149F of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986: Slotboom v R [2013] NSWCCA 18; BC201301009 at [36]. As to the approach to be taken where application for an adjournment is made by an unrepresented indigent accused charged with a serious offence, see Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292; 109 ALR 385; BC9202663 and annotations at [19-10,001]–[19-10,001.15]. See R (Cth) v Petroulias (No 11) [2007] NSWSC 533; BC200711112 where application for adjournment of a trial was made, not on a Dietrich basis, but to allow steps to be taken to ensure that monies were available to fund the defence. Where an adjournment is sought because of media publicity the judge must not only consider the importance of ensuring the accused a fair trial but also the necessity to have the trial heard expeditiously in the interests not only of the accused but of witnesses and in some cases the family of the victim: Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94; 86 ALR 35. An application for an adjournment may be made before the day of the hearing in accordance with District Court Pt 53 r 10: see [2-12,060]. As to adjournments of summary proceedings see at [2-s 190.1].

[2-s 41] How accused person to be dealt with during adjournment 41 (1) A court may, if bail is not dispensed with or granted to an accused person for the period of an adjournment, remand the accused person to a correctional centre or other place of security during the adjournment. (2) The warrant of commitment may be signed by any Judge or authorised officer. (3) A Judge may at any time, by written notice to the parties, shorten or end an adjournment if the accused person is not in custody. [s 41 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[37], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 42] Witnesses in mitigation 42 (1) After convicting an accused person of an offence, and before passing sentence, the court may summon witnesses and examine them on oath in respect of any matter in mitigation of the offence. (2) The court may do so on application made by or on behalf of the Crown or by or on behalf of the accused person. [s 42 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[38], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 42 (previously s 100) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 424 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 42 Sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 42.1]

[2-s 42.1] Sentencing As to the practices and procedures for sentencing offenders see Sentencing Procedure at [5-001] and following.

96

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 76 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 96:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 44.5]

[2-s 43] Restitution of property 43 (1) In any criminal proceedings in which it is alleged that the accused person has unlawfully acquired or disposed of property, the court may order that the property be restored to such person as appears to the court to be lawfully entitled to its possession. (2) Such an order may be made whether or not the court finds the person guilty of any offence with respect to the acquisition or disposal of the property. (3) Such an order may not be made in respect of: (a) any valuable security given by the accused person in payment of a liability to which the person was subject when the payment was made, or (b) any negotiable instrument accepted by the accused person as valuable consideration in circumstances in which the person had no notice, or cause to suspect, that the instrument had been dishonestly come by. [s 43 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[39], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 43 (previously s 126) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 438 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 43 Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 43.1]

[2-s 43.1] Restitution As to restitution of property in police custody see at [2-s 318] and following. As to livestock, see at [2-s 324] and following.

[2-s 44] When case not to be proceeded with: accused person to be released from custody 44 (1) On deciding that no further proceedings are to be taken with respect to a person who is in custody on remand, whether or not the person has been committed for trial, the Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions may cause a certificate to that effect, in the form prescribed by the regulations, to be delivered to the Supreme Court. (2) On receipt of such a certificate, the Supreme Court may, by order, direct that the person to whom the certificate relates be released from custody. [s 44 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[39], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s note: Section 44 (previously s 127) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 358 and the Third Schedule of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 44 Form of certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No further proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 44.1] [2-s 44.5]

[2-s 44.1] Form of certificate See cl 114 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5875] and Form 4 at [2-5955] for the prescribed form of certificate under s 44. [2-s 44.5] No further proceedings As to the power of prosecution to determine not to proceed by finding no bill see at [7-005].

97

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 77 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 97:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 44

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 78 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 98:: bwservice::0::

PART 1 — PRELIMINARY [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[40], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 45] Application of Chapter and definitions 45 (1) This Chapter applies to or in respect of proceedings for indictable offences (other than indictable offences being dealt with summarily). (2) In this Chapter: Judge includes a Magistrate. Magistrate includes a Children’s Court Magistrate and any other person of a class prescribed for the purposes of this definition. [def am Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29, opn 7 Apr 2009]

registrar means, for the purposes of Part 2: (a) in the case of committal proceedings before a Local Court Magistrate, a registrar of the Local Court, or (b) in the case of committal proceedings before a Children’s Court Magistrate, the Children’s Registrar appointed under the Children’s Court Act 1987. [def am Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009] [s 45 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[41], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 46] Jurisdiction of courts 46 (1) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction in respect of all indictable offences. (2) The District Court has jurisdiction in respect of all indictable offences, other than such offences as may be prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. [s 46 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[9], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[42], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 46 Jurisdiction of the District Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 46.1]

[2-s 46.1] Jurisdiction of the District Court The District Court has no jurisdiction in respect of offences within s 12 (treason and treason-related offences) and s 19A (murder) of the Crimes Act: cl 115, Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5880].

PART 2 — COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS [Pt 2 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[43], opn 7 July 2003]

DIVISION 1 — COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

[2-s 47] Commencement of committal proceedings by court attendance notice 47 (1) Committal proceedings for an offence are to be commenced by the issue and filing of a court attendance notice in accordance with this Division.

99

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 79 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 99:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CHAPTER 3 — INDICTABLE PROCEDURE [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[40], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 47]

s 47

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(2) A court attendance notice may be issued in respect of a person if the person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence. (3) A court attendance notice may be issued in respect of any offence for which proceedings may be taken in this State, including an offence committed elsewhere than in this State. (4) Nothing in this Part affects any law or practice relating to indictments presented or filed in the Supreme Court or the District Court by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. (5) If an Act or a statutory rule provides for committal proceedings to be commenced otherwise than by issuing and filing a court attendance notice, the proceedings may be commenced in accordance with this Act. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 47 Commencing committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filing of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 47.1] [2-s 47.5]

[2-s 47.1] Commencing committal proceedings “Committal proceedings” are defined in s 4. Committal proceedings commence on the date on which a court attendance notice is filed at a Local Court: s 53(1). As to the requirements of a court attendance notice: see at [2-s 50.1]. A court attendance notice can relate to only one offence: s 51. As to the jurisdiction of a court in the state to deal with offences committed outside the state see at Crimes Act Pt 1A at [8-s 10A] and following. As to the commencement of a private prosecution, see s 49. As to the law and practice relating to indictments presented and filed in the Supreme and District Court, see Trial Procedure at [7-100] and following. [2-s 47.5] Filing of documents concerning the filing of documents.

See r 8.7 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9845]

[2-s 48] Commencement of proceedings by police officer or public officer 48 If a police officer or public officer is authorised under section 14 of this Act or under any other law to commence committal proceedings, the officer may commence committal proceedings for an offence against a person by issuing a court attendance notice and filing the notice in accordance with this Division. [s 48 am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

[2-s 49] Commencement of private prosecutions 49 (1) If a person other than a police officer or public officer is authorised under section 14 of this Act or under any other law to commence committal proceedings against a person for an offence, the person may commence the proceedings by issuing a court attendance notice, signed by a registrar, and filing the notice in accordance with this Division. [subs (1) am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(2) A registrar must not sign a court attendance notice if: (a) the registrar is of the opinion that the notice does not disclose grounds for the proceedings, or (b) the registrar is of the opinion that the notice is not in the form required by or under this Act, or

100

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 80 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 100:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 50.1]

(c) the registrar is of the opinion that a ground for refusal set out in the rules applies to the notice. (3) If a registrar refuses to sign a court attendance notice proposed to be issued by any such person, the question of whether the court attendance notice is to be signed and issued is to be determined by a Magistrate on application by the person. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 49 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 49.0] Law Part Code

[2-s 49.0] [2-s 49.1]

The Law Part Code for s 49(3) is 51508.

[2-s 49.1] Private prosecutions As to the requirements of a court attendance notice see at [2-s 50.1]. The Director of Public Prosecutions has power to control proceedings for indictable offences and in particular can require a person who has commenced a prosecution to provide information: see at [29-10,275]; and can take over and carry on the proceedings or terminate them: see at [29-10,235]. See r 8.4 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9830] for grounds for a registrar to refuse to sign a court attendance notice. The operation of s 49 and the now repealed r 57 of the Local Courts (Criminal and Application Procedure) Rule 2003 (the predecessor to r 8.4 of the Local Court Rules 2009) was considered in Potier v Huber (2004) 148 A Crim R 399; [2004] NSWSC 720; BC200405049 where a challenge to a magistrate’s refusal to issue court attendance notices was rejected.

[2-s 50] Form of court attendance notice 50 (1) A court attendance notice must be in writing and be in the form prescribed by the rules. (2) The rules may prescribe one or more forms of court attendance notice. (3) A court attendance notice must do the following: (a) describe the offence, (b) briefly state the particulars of the alleged offence, (c) contain the name of the prosecutor, (d) require the accused person to appear before the Magistrate at a specified date, time and place, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail, (e) state, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail, that failure to appear may result in the arrest of the person or in the matter being dealt with in the absence of the person. [subs (3) am Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[1], opn 7 July 2003]

(4) The rules may prescribe additional matters to be included in court attendance notices. (5) A court attendance notice may describe an offence, act or other thing in any way that is sufficient under this Act for the purposes of an indictment or an averment in an indictment. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 50 Requirements of a court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 81 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:22 bwpageid:: 101:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 50.1] [2-s 50.5]

Criminal Procedure

s 50

[2-s 50.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 50

[2-s 50.1] Requirements of a court attendance notice As to the description of an offence in a court attendance notice, see at [2-s 11.1]. The offence may be described in the prescribed short form for the offence, see at [2-s 12]. As to the description of an offence in an indictment or an averment in an indictment, see s 16 and the annotations to that section. In particular there are provisions relating to the description of particular offences contained in Pt 3 of Sch 2. See r 3.2 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9370] concerning the approved form and contents of a court attendance notice commencing proceedings for an indictable offence. For all the approved form of court attendance notice see [2-11,5640]–[2-11,5650]. For the approved form of notice, see Forms at [2-5600] and following. In the course of the second reading speech for the Courts Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2002, which amended s 50(3)(b) and omitted s 51, Mr Moss, Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Attorney-General, said (NSW Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 23 October 2002): It was not intended that the Justices Act reform package change the law in relation to the contents of the initiating process. Therefore ss 50 and 175 will be amended to more closely reflect the language of the current law. Schedule 1.2[2] will amend ss 51 and 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act which provide that a court attendance notice may not relate to more than one offence. This restriction will cause significant problems for the police when they issue field court attendance notices. The benefits of being able to issue court attendance notices out in the field, without having to come to court to file the documents, would be lost if police had to issue multiple notices where a person was being charged with a number of offences. The bill will repeal those sections. [2-s 50.5] Duplicity A court attendance notice is not necessarily invalid because it is duplicitous either on its face or having regard to the evidence led in support of it: see at [2-s 16.30]. As to duplicity generally see at [2-s 16.20]. If there is duplicity arising from the evidence the magistrate may require the prosecutor to elect which evidence is being relied upon to support the charge: see Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656; 48 A Crim R 16.

Court attendance notice to be for one matter only 51

[s 51 rep Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[2], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 52] Service of court attendance notices 52 (1) A court attendance notice issued by a police officer must be served by a police officer or prosecutor in accordance with the rules. [subs (1) am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(2) A court attendance notice issued by a public officer must be served by a police officer, public officer or other person prescribed by the rules, in accordance with the rules. (3) A court attendance notice issued by a person other than a police officer or public officer must be served by a person prescribed by the rules in accordance with the rules. (4) A copy of a court attendance notice must be filed in the registry of a court in accordance with the rules. [subs (4) subst Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(5) [subs (5) rep Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

102

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 82 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:23 bwpageid:: 102:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 52 Service of court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2 s 54.0]

[2-s 52.5]

[2-s 52.5] Service of court attendance notice See Pt 5 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9540] and following concerning service of notices.

[2-s 53] When proceedings commence 53 (1) All proceedings are taken to have commenced on the date on which a court attendance notice is filed in the registry of a relevant court in accordance with this Division. (2) [subs (2) rep Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006] (3) Nothing in this section affects any other Act or law under which proceedings are taken to have commenced on another date.

[2-s 54] Attendance of accused person at proceedings 54 (1) A person who issues a court attendance notice may, at any time after the notice is issued and before the date on which the accused person is required to first attend before a Magistrate for the hearing of committal proceedings, apply for a warrant to arrest the accused person. (2) An authorised officer may, when a court attendance notice is issued by the registrar, or filed in the court, or at any time after then and before the matter is first before a Magistrate, issue a warrant to arrest the accused person if the authorised officer is satisfied there are substantial reasons to do so and that it is in the interests of justice to do so. (3) The rules may make provision for or with respect to matters that may be taken into account by an authorised officer in determining whether to issue a warrant under this section. (3A) If an accused person is not present at the day, time and place set down for the hearing of committal proceedings (including any day to which proceedings are adjourned), or absconds from the committal proceedings, the Magistrate may issue a warrant to arrest the accused person if the Magistrate is satisfied there are substantial reasons to do so and that it is in the interests of justice to do so. [subs (3A) insrt Act 130 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 6[1], opn 7 July 2003]

(4) A Magistrate or authorised officer before whom an accused person is brought on arrest on a warrant issued under this section may, if bail is not dispensed with or granted, issue a warrant: (a) committing the accused person to a correctional centre or other place of security, and (b) ordering the accused person to be brought before a Magistrate at the date, time and place specified in the order. (5) The Magistrate or authorised officer must give notice of the date, time and place to the prosecutor. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 54 Law Part Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 83 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:23 bwpageid:: 103:: bwservice::0::

[2 s 54.0] [2-s 54.1]

Criminal Procedure

s 54

[2 s 54.0]

s 54

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

[2 s 54.0] Law Part Codes The Law Part Code for s 54(1) is 51517. The Law Part Code for s 54(2) is 51518. The Law Part Code for s 54(3A) is 59957. [2-s 54.1] Warrants Provisions concerning arrest warrants are found in Pt 4 Div 2 at [2-s 235] and following. A warrant must be in a form prescribed by the rules, may be issued on any day of the week and need not be returnable at any particular time but continues in force until it is carried out. A person who is arrested on a warrant must be brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable: [2-s 239]. Editor’s note: on 30 April 2018 Divs 2–5 of Pt 2 of Ch 3 (ss 55–108) were removed by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 No 55. These provisions can now be located, for a period of transition, immediately after the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [REP 2-s 55] and following.

DIVISION 2 — COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY [Div 2 subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 55] Outline of committal proceedings steps 55 Subject to this Part, the steps for committal proceedings are generally as follows: (a) committal proceedings are commenced by the issuing and filing of a court attendance notice, (b) a brief of evidence is served on the accused person by the prosecutor, (c) a charge certificate setting out the offences that are to be proceeded with is filed in the Local Court and served by the prosecutor on the accused person, (d) if the accused person is represented, 1 or more case conferences are held by the prosecutor and the legal representative for the accused person, (e) if the accused person is represented, a case conference certificate is filed in the Local Court, (f) the accused person pleads guilty or not guilty to each offence being proceeded with and the Magistrate commits the accused person for trial (if the accused person pleads not guilty) or for sentence (if the accused person pleads guilty). COMMENTARY ON SECTION 55 Committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The broad 2017 reforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Application of the 2017 reforms to committal proceedings . . . . . . . Local Court Practice Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 55.1] [2-s 55.5] [2-s 55.10] [2-s 55.15]

[2-s 55.1] Committal proceedings Major reforms to committal proceedings were made by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (“the 2017 Act”) which commenced on 30 April 2018. In the second reading speech for the 2017 Act (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General Mr Mark Speakman said that the “bill abolishes the substantive committal decision and committal hearings so that magistrates will no longer be required to consider the evidence and determine if there is a reasonable prospect that a jury, properly instructed, would convict the accused person of the offense. Instead, magistrates will need to be satisfied that the new steps certifying the charges and holding a case conference have been completed before committing the matter to a higher court for trial or sentence. The NSW Law Reform Commission

104

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 84 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:23 bwpageid:: 104:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 55.15]

recommended that committal hearings be abolished because magistrates were exercising the discretion to discharge in only 1 per cent of cases. Under the reform, the prosecutor will perform a gatekeeping role earlier in the process by certifying which charges will proceed.” [2-s 55.5] The broad 2017 reforms Apart from reforms to committal proceedings, the Attorney General (in the second reading speech) explained further elements of the 2017 reforms: (a) The investigating agency that charged the accused person with the offence, usually the NSW Police Force or the Australian Federal Police, will provide a simplified brief of evidence to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions(ODPP) or the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions(CDPP); (b) A senior prosecutor in the ODPP or CDPP will review the evidence and file a charge certificate with the Local Court that confirms the charges that will proceed to trial and identifies any charges that should be withdrawn — this will reduce the likelihood that the charges will change closer to the trial date and provides certainty to the defence; (c) The prosecutor and the defence lawyer will then be required to have a case conference to discuss the case and to determine whether there are any offences to which the accused person is willing to plead guilty; (d) The legislation prescribes sentencing discounts given for the utilitarian value of guilty pleas by introducing a statutory sentencing discount scheme. The Attorney General stated that additional funding was being provided to the ODPP and Legal Aid (NSW) “to ensure the continuity of senior lawyers for both the prosecution and the defence from start to finish . . . Having the same senior prosecutor and defence lawyer in the case throughout its life will increase certainty about the charges, avoid last-minute changes in charges and pleas at trial and improve communications with victims about the process. The Attorney General said that: (a) These “measures are designed to remove the perverse incentives that currently operate and cause parties to delay entering a guilty plea and to strengthen the incentives for defendants to enter appropriate guilty pleas in the process. In addition, the improved case management under the reforms will ensure contested trials will be shorter and more efficient by narrowing the issues in dispute”; (b) “By frontloading the work so that prosecutors are involved early to certify charges and by encouraging early resolution of cases, we are improving victims’ experience in the process”. Provision is made for examination of prosecution witnesses (at ss 82–92 — see [2-s 82]ff) for the purposes of committal proceedings with the Attorney General observing that these “hearings may assist the parties to assess better the case against the accused and to facilitate further negotiations about the charges and possible offers to plead guilty”. [2-s 55.10] Application of the 2017 reforms to committal proceedings The amendments made by the 2017 Act do not apply to committal proceedings for an offence commenced before the 2017 amendments came into effect, with the former committal provisions applying to those proceedings: cl 98, Sch 2 at [2-Sch 2]. See s 47ff Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and annotations to those provisions at [2-s 47.1]. The amendments made by the 2017 Act extend to proceedings commenced on or after 30 April 2018, whether the offence is said to have been committed before or after that date: cl 100, Sch 2 at [2-Sch 2]. [2-s 55.15] Local Court Practice Notes See Local Court Practice Note Comm 2 (issued on 14 March 2018) at [28-15,203] for procedures to be adopted for committal proceedings in the Local Court pursuant to the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea Scheme. Local Court Practice Note Comm 1 at [28-15,200] continues to apply to committal proceedings governed by provisions before amendment by the 2017 Act.

105

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 85 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:23 bwpageid:: 105:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 55

[2-s 56]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 56

[2-s 56] Magistrate to conduct committal proceedings 56 (1) Committal proceedings are to be conducted by a Magistrate. (2) A Magistrate may fix days for the purpose of taking steps or doing other things in committal proceedings. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 56 Conduct of committal proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 56.1] [2-s 56.1] Conduct of committal proceedings See Local Court Practice Note Comm 2 (issued on 14 March 2018) at [28-15,203] concerning committal proceedings.

[2-s 57] Committal proceedings to be heard in open court 57 (1) Committal proceedings are to be heard as if in open court. (2) This section is subject to any other Act or law. (3) For the purpose only of facilitating the use of an electronic case management system established under the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 in committal proceedings, the hearing of a matter may be conducted in the absence of the public, with the consent of the parties to the proceedings concerned, if the matter: (a) arises after the first appearance of the accused person in committal proceedings, and (b) is of a procedural nature, and (c) does not require the resolution of a disputed issue, and (d) does not involve a person giving oral evidence. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 57 Open court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 57.1] Media access to court documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 57.5] [2-s 57.1] Open court A fundamental rule of the common law was that the administration of justice must take place in open court: John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 at 476; Attorney-General (NSW) v Mayas Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 342 at 345–350. The test for making a non-publication or suppression order at common law was one of necessity — where it was really necessary to secure the proper administration of justice: John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v Police Tribunal (NSW) at 476-477. See the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 at [29-9001]ff. [2-s 57.5] Media access to court documents See s 314 at [2-s 314] concerning media access to court exhibits. In John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; 220 ALR 248; [2005] NSWCA 101; BC200501968, consideration was given to express and implied powers to grant access to court documents with it being said that open justice was a principle rather than a right and that there was no common law to obtain access to a document filed in proceedings and retained as part of the court record.

[2-s 58] Application of other procedural provisions to committal proceedings 58 The following provisions of this Act apply, subject to any necessary modifications and to any provision of this Part, to committal proceedings conducted by a Magistrate in the same way as they apply to proceedings for offences before the Local Court:

106

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 86 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:24 bwpageid:: 106:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 60.1]

(a) sections 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 44, (b) Part 3 (Attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in lower courts) of Chapter 4, (c) Part 4 (Warrants) of Chapter 4. Note. The Chief Magistrate may issue practice notes about the practice or procedure to be followed in criminal proceedings (see sections 26 and 27 of the Local Court Act 2007).

[2-s 59] Explanation of committal process and discount for guilty plea 59 (1) The Magistrate in committal proceedings must give the accused person an oral and written explanation of the following matters: (a) the committal process under this Part, including charge certification, case conferences and committal for trial or sentence, (b) the scheme under Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for the sentence discount that applies in the case of a guilty plea. (2) The oral and written explanation must be given: (a) if a case conference is required to be held, after the charge certificate is filed and before the first day on which a case conference is held, or (b) in any other case, after the charge certificate is filed and before the day on which the accused person is committed for trial or sentence. (3) The explanations are to include the matters prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. (4) The Magistrate is not required to give an explanation of the scheme for the sentence discount in a case concerning an offence under a law of the Commonwealth. (5) A failure by a Magistrate to comply with this section does not affect the validity of anything done or omitted to be done by the Magistrate or any other person in or for the purposes of the committal proceedings. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 59 Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanations of committal process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 59.1] [2-s 59.5]

[2-s 59.1] Explanations See s 25A and following at [5-s 25A] for provisions concerning sentencing discounts for guilty pleas for indictable offences. [2-s 59.5] Explanations of committal process See cll 9A and 9B of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5067]–[2-5070] for the prescribed forms of oral and written explanations of the committal process.

[2-s 60] Application of Drug Court proceedings 60 An accused person may be dealt with under the Drug Court Act 1998 at any stage of committal proceedings despite any requirement of this Part. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 60 Drug Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 60.1]

[2-s 60.1] Drug Court In the second reading speech for the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney

107

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 87 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:24 bwpageid:: 107:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 60

[2-s 60.1]

s 60

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

General said that s 60 “reflects the intention that the reform is not intended to change any of the important work done by the Drug Court of New South Wales” and that the addition of s 25F(6) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 at [5-s 25F] “will make clear that the Drug Court may apply a 25 per cent discount to an offender who is referred to the program before committal and pleads guilty as part of the condition for entering the program”.

DIVISION 3 — DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE [Div 3 subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 61] Requirement to disclose evidence 61 (1) The prosecutor must, after the commencement of committal proceedings and on or before any day specified by order by the Magistrate for that purpose, serve or cause to be served on the accused person a brief of evidence relating to each offence the subject of the proceedings. (2) This Division is subject to, and does not affect the operation of, section 15A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 or any other law or obligation relating to the provision of material to an accused person by a prosecutor. Note. Examples of such a law are laws about privilege and immunity in relation to evidence.

[2-s 62] Matters to be disclosed in brief of evidence 62 (1) The brief of evidence must contain the following: (a) copies of all material obtained by the prosecution that forms the basis of the prosecution’s case, (b) copies of any other material obtained by the prosecution that is reasonably capable of being relevant to the case for the accused person, (c) copies of any other material obtained by the prosecution that would affect the strength of the prosecution’s case. (2) The material contained in the brief of evidence may be, but is not required to be, in the form required under Part 3A of Chapter 6 or in any particular form otherwise required for the material to be admissible as evidence. (3) The regulations may specify requirements for material included in a brief of evidence. (4) The Minister is to consult with the Minister for Police before a regulation is made under subsection (3). COMMENTARY ON SECTION 62 Matters to be disclosed in brief of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 62.1]

[2-s 62.1] Matters to be disclosed in brief of evidence In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General explained that the definition in s 62 includes “evidence relevant to the defence case and evidence relevant to the strength of the prosecution case, consistent with the current duty of disclosure expressed in the guidelines” of the DPP with the intent of this definition of a brief of evidence being to “ensure sufficient disclosure for the prosecution to properly assess a case and to certify the charges, and for the defence to make informed decisions about the case and to determine whether to enter a guilty plea”. With respect to s 62(2) which provides that material does not have to be in admissible form, the Attorney General said that “there will not be a less robust investigation, nor will there be changes to best practice for the collection of evidence” with the reforms being “about ensuring that the

108

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 88 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:24 bwpageid:: 108:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 65]

brief can be served earlier by reducing some of the formal requirements around how evidence is to be presented that currently contribute to delay in criminal cases.” The Attorney General said, “Given a magistrate will no longer be considering the evidence before committal, it is no longer necessary that the entire contents of the brief of evidence comply with these requirements to be admissible as evidence. However, the senior prosecutor in the ODPP or the CDPP may require evidence in an admissible form to properly assess the case and to certify the charges. A protocol between the NSW Police Force and the DPP will provide guidance on a case-by-case basis as to when the alternative, simpler form will be sufficient”. The DPP (NSW) and the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force have entered into a written agreement dated 27 April 2018 concerning the content and service of an early appropriate guilty plea brief and charge certification. The Agreement may be found at [28-37,005].

[2-s 63] Additional material to be disclosed 63 (1) The prosecutor must serve or cause to be served on the accused person copies of material obtained by the prosecutor and not included in the brief of evidence, if the material is of a kind required to be included in the brief of evidence. (2) The prosecutor must serve or cause the material to be served as soon as practicable after it is obtained by the prosecutor. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 63 Additional material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 63.1]

[2-s 63.1] Additional material In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General said that s 63 “creates a statutory requirement for ongoing disclosure of any material that is received after the brief of evidence has been served”.

[2-s 64] Exceptions to requirement to provide copies of material 64 (1) The prosecutor is not required to include a copy of a thing required to be provided under this Division, or to serve or cause it to be served, if: (a) it is impossible or impractical to copy the thing, or (b) the accused person agrees to inspect the thing in accordance with this section. (2) However, in that case the prosecutor is: (a) to serve or caused to be served on the accused person a notice specifying a reasonable time and place at which the thing may be inspected or other reasonable means by which the thing is to be provided for inspection, and (b) to allow the accused person a reasonable opportunity to inspect each thing referred to in the notice. DIVISION 4 — CHARGE CERTIFICATES [Div 4 subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 65] Prosecutors who may exercise charge certificate and case conference functions 65 The functions of a prosecutor under this Division and Division 5 (which relates to case conferences) may be exercised only by the following persons: (a) the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General,

109

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 89 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:24 bwpageid:: 109:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 65

[2-s 65]

s 65

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(b) in the case of committal proceedings to which this Division applies because of section 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 of the Commonwealth, any of the following: (i) a person holding an equivalent office under the Commonwealth, (ii) a special prosecutor appointed under an Act of the Commonwealth, (iii) a person authorised under Commonwealth legislation to exercise the functions of a person referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii), (iv) a person authorised by an arrangement made with a person referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) to exercise the functions of that person, (c) a legal representative of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), (d) any other person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. Note. The effect of this provision is to prevent any other person from being able to complete the steps required to be taken by a prosecutor for the committal proceedings that are set out in Divisions 4 and 5 of this Part. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 65 Persons to exercise functions of prosecutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 65.1]

[2-s 65.1] Persons to exercise functions of prosecutor See cl 9C of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5073] with respect to prosecutors who may exercise charge certificate and case conference functions.

[2-s 66] Charge certificates 66 (1) A charge certificate is a document in the form prescribed by the regulations and signed by the prosecutor that: (a) relates to the offences specified in a court attendance notice for the committal proceedings, and (b) specifies the offences that are to be the subject of the proceedings against the accused person, and (c) sets out the details of each of those offences in a way that is sufficient under this Act for the purposes of an indictment or an averment in an indictment, and (d) specifies any back up or related offences (within the meaning of section 165) that are proposed to be the subject of a certificate under section 166(1) relating to charges against the accused person, and (e) if applicable, confirms that proceedings against the accused person for other specified offences are no longer being proceeded with, and (f) contains any other matters prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. (2) The prosecutor must certify in the certificate that: (a) the evidence available to the prosecutor is capable of establishing each element of the offences that are to be the subject of the proceedings against the accused person, and (b) in the case of an offence other than an offence under the law of the Commonwealth or an offence prosecuted by a Commonwealth prosecutor, the prosecutor has received and considered a certificate under section 15A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 relating to that offence. [subs (2) am Act 10 of 2019 Sch 1 item 1.9[1], opn 26 Sep 2019]

110

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 90 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:25 bwpageid:: 110:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 67.1]

(2A) In subsection (2), Commonwealth prosecutor means a person referred to in section 65(b) or a legal representative of a person referred to in that paragraph. [subs (2A) insrt Act 10 of 2019 Sch 1 item 1.9[2], opn 26 Sep 2019]

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not limit the matters that may be included by the regulations in the prescribed form of charge certificate. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 66 Charge certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 66.1]

[2-s 66.1] Charge certificates Clause 9D of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5075] provides that, for the purpose of s 66(1) of the Act, a charge certificate must be in Form 1A to the Regulation at [2-5967].

[2-s 67] Charge certificate must be filed 67 (1) A charge certificate must be filed by the prosecutor in the registry of the Local Court, and served or caused to be served on the accused person, not later than the day set by order by the Magistrate. (2) The day must: (a) be set after the service of the brief of evidence in the committal proceedings, and (b) be not later than 6 months after the first return date for a court attendance notice in the committal proceedings. (3) However, the Magistrate may set a day for the filing of a charge certificate that is later than 6 months after the first return date for a court attendance notice in the committal proceedings: (a) with the consent of the accused person, or (b) if it is in the interests of justice to do so. (4) In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice to set a later day, the Magistrate is to consider the complexity of the matters the subject of the proceedings. This subsection does not limit the matters that may be considered by the Magistrate. (5) If the prosecutor determines that an offence other than an offence specified in the charge certificate filed by the prosecutor is to be the subject of the proceedings against the accused person, the prosecutor must file in the registry of the Local Court, and serve or cause to be served on the accused person, an amended charge certificate before the accused person is committed for trial or sentence. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 67 Filing of charge certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 67.1]

[2-s 67.1] Filing of charge certificate Local Court Practice Note Comm 2 (issued 14 March 2018) at [28-15,203] provides for the filing of a charge certificate. In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General observed that the six month time limit on filing the charge certificate (which can be extended by a magistrate by consent or if it is in the interests of justice to do so) “should only be exceeded in exceptional and complex cases where there are legitimate operational reasons for the brief of evidence taking a longer time to prepare.”

111

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 91 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:25 bwpageid:: 111:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 67

[2-s 68]

s 68

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

[2-s 68] Failure to file charge certificate 68 (1) This section applies if the prosecutor fails to file and serve, or cause to be served, a charge certificate before: (a) the day that is 6 months after the first return date for a court attendance notice in the committal proceedings, or (b) any later day set by the Magistrate for doing those things. (2) The Magistrate must: (a) discharge the accused person as to any offence the subject of the committal proceedings, or (b) if the Magistrate thinks it appropriate in the circumstances of the case, adjourn the committal proceedings to a specified time and place. (3) In determining what action to take, the Magistrate is to consider the interests of justice. (4) If a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the accused person as a result of a failure to appear at the committal proceedings: (a) a Magistrate is not required to take any action under this section until the accused person is brought before the Magistrate, and (b) the period of 6 months specified in subsection (1)(a) is taken to be extended by the number of days between the issue of the warrant and the day the accused person is so brought before the Magistrate. Note. The Magistrate may extend the time for filing a charge certificate at any time under section 67. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 68 Failure to file charge certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 68.1]

[2-s 68.1] Failure to file charge certificate In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General noted that the combination of ss 67 and 68 “ensure that the prosecutor moves swiftly to certify the charges and they provide certainty so that case conferencing can commence”.

DIVISION 5 — CASE CONFERENCES [Div 5 subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 69] Exceptions to requirements for case conference procedures 69 This Division does not apply to an accused person in committal proceedings if the accused person: (a) is not, or ceases to be, represented by an Australian legal practitioner, or (b) pleads guilty to each offence that is being proceeded with and the pleas are accepted by the Magistrate before a case conference is held, or (c) is committed for trial under Division 7.

[2-s 70] Case conferences to be held 70 (1) A case conference is to be held in accordance with this Division. (2) The principal objective of the case conference is to determine whether there are any offences to which the accused person is willing to plead guilty. (3) A case conference may also be used to achieve the following objectives:

112

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 92 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:25 bwpageid:: 112:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 72]

(a) to facilitate the provision of additional material or other information which may be reasonably necessary to enable the accused person to determine whether or not to plead guilty to 1 or more offences, (b) to facilitate the resolution of other issues relating to the proceedings against the accused person, including identifying key issues for the trial of the accused person and any agreed or disputed facts. (4) The case conference is to be held after the filing of the charge certificate by the prosecutor. (5) More than one case conference may be held. (6) A further case conference may be, but is not required to be, held after the filing of an amended charge certificate by the prosecutor.

[2-s 71] Case conference procedures 71 (1) A case conference is to be held between the prosecutor and the accused person’s legal representative in the committal proceedings. (2) The initial case conference for the purposes of this Division must be held in person or by audio visual link. Any subsequent case conference may also be held by telephone. (3) The Magistrate may order that an initial case conference be held by telephone if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that make it impracticable to hold the conference in person or by audio visual link. (4) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to case conferences, including the attendance of the accused person at a case conference. (5) In this section: audio visual link means facilities (including closed-circuit television or other electronic means of communication) that enable audio and visual communication between persons at different places. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 71 Case conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Availability and attendance of accused person at case conference .

[2-s 71.1] [2-s 71.5]

[2-s 71.1] Case conferences In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General observed that the case conference must have a level of formality “because experience from previous case conferencing trials tells us that unless the case conference is a formal, structured, face-to-face event, it is less effective . . . The accused is expected to be available to give contemporaneous instructions and to participate in the case conference as required to ensure that the accused person understands the seriousness of the event”. [2-s 71.5] Availability and attendance of accused person at case conference See cl 9E of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5078] with respect to the availability of accused persons to give instructions for the purposes of a case conference and clause 9F at [2-5080] concerning the attendance of accused persons at case conferences.

[2-s 72] Obligations of legal representative of accused 72 (1) The accused person’s legal representative is to seek to obtain the accused person’s instructions concerning the matters to be dealt with in the case conference before participating in the case conference.

113

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 93 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:25 bwpageid:: 113:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 72

[2-s 72]

s 72

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(2) The accused person’s legal representative must explain the following matters to the accused person before the case conference certificate is completed: (a) the effect of the scheme for the sentencing discount applied under Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for a plea of guilty to an offence, (b) the penalties applicable to the offences certified in the charge certificate and to any other offences the subject of offers made by the accused or the prosecutor in the committal proceedings, (c) the effect on the applicable penalty if the accused person were to plead guilty to any offence at different stages of proceedings for the offence. (3) Subsection (2) applies only in respect of an offence to which Division 1A of Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 applies. [subs (3) insrt Act 10 of 2019 Sch 1 item 1.9[3], opn 26 Sep 2019]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 72 Obligations of defence legal representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 72.1]

[2-s 72.1] Obligations of defence legal representatives In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General explained the purpose of s 72 as being to ensure that the position of the accused person at the case conference was taken “fully informed of the consequences” with this helping “to mitigate the risk of late changes of plea after committal”.

[2-s 73] Joint accused 73 (1) If the accused person has been charged jointly with any other person with the offence concerned, a separate case conference is to be held for each of the co-accused. However, a joint case conference may be held for 2 or more co-accused with the consent of the prosecutor and each of the co-accused. (2) A joint case conference may be held only if a charge certificate has been filed for each of the co-accused.

[2-s 74] Case conference certificate must be completed and filed 74 (1) The Magistrate is to make an order setting the day on or before which the case conference certificate is to be filed. (2) If more than 1 case conference is held, the case conference certificate is to be filed after all the case conferences are completed. (3) The prosecutor and the legal representative of the accused person must ensure that a case conference certificate that complies with this Division is completed and signed on or before the day set by the Magistrate for filing the certificate. [subs (3) am Act 25 of 2018 Sch 1 item 1.7, opn 30 Apr 2018]

(4) The prosecutor must ensure that the case conference certificate is filed on or before the day set by the Magistrate. (5) A prosecutor or legal representative of an accused person is not required to comply with this section if all the offences to which the proceedings relate— (a) are to be dealt with summarily, or

114

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 94 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:26 bwpageid:: 114:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 75]

(b) are, for any other reason, not proceeding for committal by the Magistrate of the accused person for trial or sentence. [subs (5) insrt Act 10 of 2019 Sch 1 item 1.9[4], opn 26 Sep 2019]

[2-s 75] Contents of case conference certificate 75 (1) The case conference certificate is to be in the form prescribed by the regulations and is to certify as to the following matters: (a) the offence or offences with which the accused person had been charged before the case conference and which the prosecution had specified in the charge certificate as offences that will be proceeding or are the subject of a certificate under section 166, (b) any offers by the accused person to plead guilty to an offence specified in the charge certificate or to different offences, (c) any offers by the prosecution to the accused person to accept guilty pleas to an offence specified in the charge certificate or to different offences, (d) whether the accused person or prosecution has accepted or rejected any such offers, (e) the offence or offences for which the prosecution will seek committal for trial or sentence, (f) any back up or related offence or offences (within the meaning of section 165) that are proposed to be the subject of a certificate under section 166(1) relating to charges against the accused person, (g) if an offer made to or by the accused person to plead guilty to an offence has been accepted — details of the agreed facts on the basis of which the accused person is pleading guilty and details of the facts (if any) in dispute, (h) any offences with which the accused person has been charged to which the accused person has offered to plead guilty and agreed to ask the court to take into account under section 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, (i) whether or not the prosecutor has notified the accused person of an intention to make a submission to the sentencing court that the discount for a guilty plea should not apply or should be reduced in relation to a particular offence with which the accused person is charged, (j) any other matters prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. (2) A case conference certificate must also contain: (a) a declaration by the legal representative of the accused person that the legal representative has explained to the accused person the matters specified in section 72(2), and (b) if the accused person does not intend to plead guilty to an offence, a declaration by the accused person that the legal representative has explained to the accused person the matters specified in section 72(2). (3) A failure by an accused person to make a declaration under this section does not affect the validity of anything done or omitted to be done by any other person in or for the purposes of the committal proceedings. (4) A case conference certificate must certify as to all the matters of the kind referred to in subsection (1) that occur before the certificate is filed, including any written offers of a kind referred to in subsection (1) that were made by the accused person or the prosecutor, and served on the prosecutor or accused person, before or after any case conference was held.

115

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 95 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:26 bwpageid:: 115:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 75

[2-s 75.1]

s 75

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 75 Case conference certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 75.1]

[2-s 75.1] Case conference certificates Clause 9G of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5082] provides for the form of a case conference certificate which must be in Form 1B of the Regulation at [2-5969].

[2-s 76] Failure to complete case conference obligations 76 (1) This section applies where the Magistrate is satisfied that a case conference certificate has not been filed by the day set by the Magistrate. (2) If a Magistrate is satisfied that the case conference certificate has not been filed because of an unreasonable failure by the prosecutor to participate in a case conference or to complete or file a case conference certificate, the Magistrate may: (a) discharge the accused person as to any offence the subject of the committal proceedings, or (b) adjourn the committal proceedings to a specified time and place. (3) If a Magistrate is satisfied that the case conference certificate has not been filed because of an unreasonable failure by the legal representative of the accused person to participate in a case conference or complete a case conference certificate, the Magistrate may: (a) commit the accused person for trial or sentence as if a case conference were not required to be held, or (b) adjourn the committal proceedings to a specified time and place. (4) In determining whether to take action under this section, the Magistrate is to consider the interests of justice. (5) This section does not apply if the case conference certificate has not been filed in the circumstances set out in section 74(5). [subs (5) insrt Act 10 of 2019 Sch 1 item 1.9[5], opn 26 Sep 2019]

[2-s 76A] Recordings complainants 76A

of

interviews

with

domestic

violence

[s 76A insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[4], opn 1 June 2015; rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr

2018]

[2-s 77] Further offers 77 (1) This section applies to an offer (a plea offer) if: (a) the offer is made by the accused person or the prosecutor after the filing of the case conference certificate in committal proceedings, and before the accused person is committed for trial or sentence, and (b) the offer is an offer of a kind that would have been required to be included in a case conference certificate if it had been made before the filing of the certificate, and (c) the offer is made in writing and served on the other party, and (d) the offer is filed in the registry of the Local Court. (2) A plea offer is, for all purposes, to be treated as if it formed part of the case conference certificate.

116

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 96 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:26 bwpageid:: 116:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 79A]

(3) A plea offer is to be annexed to the case conference certificate in the committal proceedings.

[2-s 78] Case conference certificate and other evidence not admissible in other proceedings 78 (1) Case conference material is not admissible in any proceedings before a court, tribunal or body. (2) However, a case conference certificate is not inadmissible in the following proceedings: (a) in relevant sentencing proceedings in accordance with Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, (b) in relevant sentencing proceedings for an offence under Commonwealth law, (c) in proceedings for an appeal against a sentence under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, (d) in proceedings for an appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 on a question of law arising from an order made by a Magistrate in committal proceedings or an appeal under section 5 or Division 2 or 3 of Part 7 of that Act, (e) in proceedings after committal for sentence relating to an application by the accused person to reverse the person’s plea to not guilty, (f) in proceedings brought by a designated local regulatory authority against a lawyer under section 300 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW). (3) Any part of a case conference certificate cannot be required to be produced under a subpoena or request issued in any proceedings before any court, tribunal or body (other than in proceedings referred to in subsection (2)). (4) A sentencing court or a court determining an appeal against a sentence must refuse to admit evidence of any case conference certificate if any provisions of this Part with respect to the holding of the conference or the preparation of the certificate have not been complied with, unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to admit the evidence. (5) In this section: case conference material means: (a) a case conference certificate, or (b) evidence of anything said between the parties, or of any admission made, during a case conference, or (c) evidence of anything said between the parties, or of any admission made, during negotiations after a case conference concerning a plea to be made by, or offers made to or by, an accused person.

[2-s 79] Confidentiality of case conference certificate matters 79 The matters that are specified in a case conference certificate are to be treated as confidential. Note. Matters in a plea offer are taken to be part of a case conference certificate (see section 77).

[2-s 79A] Form and requirements for recorded statements 79A

[s 79A insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[5], opn 1 June 2015; rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr

2018]

117

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 97 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:26 bwpageid:: 117:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 79A

[2-s 80]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 80

[2-s 80] Prohibition on publication of case conference material 80 (1) A person must not publish, or permit a person to publish, any case conference material. Maximum penalty: (a) in the case of an individual — 20 penalty units, or (b) in the case of a body corporate — 100 penalty units. (2) In this section: publish means disseminate or provide public access to one or more persons by means of the internet, radio, television or other media.

[2-s 81] Certain matters not taken to be pre-trial disclosures 81 The disclosure of any information during or in relation to a case conference held for the purposes of this Division or a plea offer is not, for the purposes of section 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a pre-trial disclosure. Note. Section 22A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 enables a court to impose a lesser penalty than it would otherwise impose on an offender who was tried on indictment, having regard to the degree to which the defence made pre-trial disclosures. DIVISION 6 — EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES [Div 6 insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 82] Magistrate may direct witness to attend 82 (1) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecutor or the accused person, direct the attendance at the committal proceedings of a person whose evidence is referred to in the brief of evidence provided under Division 3 or who has been referred to in other material provided by the prosecution to the accused person. (2) The Magistrate may hold a hearing to determine an application under this section and may require the prosecutor or the accused person to make submissions in relation to the application. (3) An application may be made only after the charge certificate has been filed in the committal proceedings. (4) The Magistrate must give the direction if an application is made by the accused person or the prosecutor and the other party consents to the direction being given. (5) In the case of any other application, the Magistrate may give a direction only if satisfied that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the witness should attend to give oral evidence. The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the determination of substantial reasons under this subsection. (6) For the purposes of determining whether to give a direction, the Magistrate may consider any material (whether or not it is in a form required for the material to be admissible as evidence). (7) A direction may be withdrawn only: (a) on the application, or with the consent, of the accused person, or (b) on the application of the prosecutor, if the accused person fails to appear on a day at which a person has been directed to appear to give evidence.

118

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 98 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:26 bwpageid:: 118:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 82 Examination of prosecution witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 83]

[2-s 82.1]

[2-s 82.1] Examination of prosecution witnesses In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General observed that ss 82–92 restructured previous provisions about calling a prosecution witness to give evidence in committal proceedings and that “these hearings may assist the parties to assess better the case against the accused and to facilitate further negotiations about the charges and possible offers to plead guilty”.

[2-s 83] Witnesses who cannot be directed to attend 83 (1) A direction may not be given so as to require the attendance of the complainant in committal proceedings for a prescribed sexual offence if the complainant is a cognitively impaired person (within the meaning of Part 6 of Chapter 6). (2) A direction may not be given so as to require the attendance of the complainant in committal proceedings for a child sexual assault offence if the complainant: (a) was under the age of 16 years: (i) on the earliest date on which, or (ii) at the beginning of the earliest period during which, any child sexual assault offence to which the proceedings relate was allegedly committed, and (b) is currently under the age of 18 years. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2): child sexual assault offence means: (a) a prescribed sexual offence, or (b) an offence that, at the time it was committed, was a child sexual assault offence for the purposes of subsection (2), or (c) an offence of attempting, or of conspiracy or incitement, to commit an offence referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or (d) an offence under any law of the Commonwealth that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and that is prescribed by the regulations. complainant, in relation to any proceedings, means the person, or any of the persons, against whom a prescribed sexual offence with which the accused person stands charged in those proceedings is alleged to have been committed, and includes: (a) in relation to an offence under section 80E of the Crimes Act 1900, the person who is alleged to have been the subject of sexual servitude, and (b) in relation to an offence under section 91D, 91E or 91F of the Crimes Act 1900, the person under the age of 18 years who is alleged to have participated in an act of child prostitution, and (c) in relation to an offence under section 91G of the Crimes Act 1900, the person under the age of 18 years who is alleged to have been used for the production of child abuse material, and (d) in relation to an offence under any law of the Commonwealth that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) and that is prescribed by the regulations — the person referred to in the relevant paragraph. [subs (3) am Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[2], [3], opn 1 Dec 2018]

119

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 99 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:27 bwpageid:: 119:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 83

[2-s 84]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 84

[2-s 84] Victim witnesses, sexual offence witnesses and vulnerable witnesses generally not to be directed to attend 84 (1) A direction may not be given so as to direct the attendance of an alleged victim of an offence involving violence that is the subject of the committal proceedings (even if the parties to the proceedings consent to the attendance) unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there are special reasons why the alleged victim should, in the interests of justice, attend to give oral evidence. (1A) In committal proceedings for an offence involving violence, a direction may not be given so as to direct a vulnerable person whose evidence is referred to in the brief of evidence to give evidence orally unless: (a) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are special reasons why the vulnerable person should, in the interests of justice, attend to give evidence, or (b) the prosecutor consents. [subs (1A) insrt Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[4], opn 1 Dec 2018]

(1B) In committal proceedings for a prescribed sexual offence, a direction may not be given so as to direct the attendance of a sexual offence witness (even if the parties to the proceedings consent to the attendance) unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there are special reasons why the sexual offence witness should, in the interests of justice, attend to give evidence. [subs (1B) insrt Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[4], opn 1 Dec 2018]

(2) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the determination of special reasons under this section. (3) The following offences are offences involving violence for the purposes of this section: (a) a prescribed sexual offence, (b) an offence under sections 27–30 of the Crimes Act 1900 (attempts to murder), (c) an offence under section 33 of the Crimes Act 1900 (wounding etc with intent to do grievous bodily harm or resist arrest), (d) an offence under section 35(1) or (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (infliction of grievous bodily harm), (e) an offence under sections 86–91 of the Crimes Act 1900 (abduction or kidnapping), (f) an offence under sections 94–98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (robbery), (g) an offence the elements of which include the commission of, or an intention to commit, an offence referred to in any of the above paragraphs, (h) an offence that, at the time it was committed, was an offence involving violence for the purposes of this section, (h1) an offence under any law of the Commonwealth that corresponds to an offence referred to in paragraph (a)–(h) and that is prescribed by the regulations, (i) any other offence that involves an act of actual or threatened violence and that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section. [subs (3) am Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[5], opn 1 Dec 2018]

(4) An offence that may be dealt with summarily under Chapter 5 is not an offence involving violence for the purposes of this section. (5) Despite section 85(4), the Magistrate must not allow a person who is an alleged victim of an offence involving violence to be cross-examined in respect of matters that were not the basis of the reasons for giving the direction, unless the Magistrate is

120

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 100 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:27 bwpageid:: 120:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 86]

satisfied that there are special reasons why, in the interests of justice, the person should be cross-examined in respect of those matters. [subs (5) insrt Act 88 of 2018 Sch 5[6], opn 1 Dec 2018]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 84 “Special reasons ... in the interests of justice” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 84.1]

[2-s 84.1] “Special reasons . . . in the interests of justice” In the context of repealed s 93 (the predecessor to s 84), it was said that the term “special reasons” is a more stringent test than that of “substantial reasons”: Lawler v Johnson (2002) 56 NSWLR 1; 134 A Crim R 199; [2002] NSWSC 864; BC200205442; Tez v Longley (2004) 142 A Crim R 122; [2004] NSWSC 74; BC200400556; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v O’Conner (2006) 181 A Crim R 294; [2006] NSWSC 458; BC200603474.

[2-s 85] Evidence of prosecution witness 85 (1) The evidence of a person who is directed to attend committal proceedings under this Division is to be given orally. (2) The person may be examined by the prosecutor. (3) The person may be cross-examined by the accused person and by the prosecutor. (4) The Magistrate must not allow the person to be cross-examined in respect of matters that were not the basis of the reasons for giving the direction, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the person should be examined in respect of those matters. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 85 “Substantial reasons ... in the interests of justice” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 85.1]

[2-s 85.1] “Substantial reasons . . . in the interests of justice” The meaning of “substantial reasons” in repealed s 91 (the predecessor to s 85) was considered in Losurdo v R (1998) 101 A Crim R 162; BC9800566; on appeal — Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Losurdo (1998) 44 NSWLR 618; 103 A Crim R 189; BC9804896.

[2-s 86] Exceptions to oral evidence 86 (1) The evidence of a person who is directed to attend committal proceedings under this Division may be given by a written statement, or another kind of statement permitted to be tendered under Part 3A of Chapter 6, if: (a) the accused person and the prosecutor consent to the statement being admitted, or (b) the Magistrate is satisfied that there are substantial reasons why, in the interests of justice, the evidence should be given by a statement. Note. Sections 283C and 283D enable the use of recordings instead of written statements in the cases of witnesses who are vulnerable persons or in the case of domestic violence offences. Section 283G enables certain transcripts of evidence in other proceedings to be used instead of written statements.

(2) The evidence of a person who is directed to attend committal proceedings under this Division may be given by a recorded statement in the circumstances permitted under Part 4B of Chapter 6.

121

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 101 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:27 bwpageid:: 121:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 86

[2-s 86]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 86

(3) This section has effect despite section 85.

[2-s 87] Evidence to be taken in presence of accused person 87 (1) The accused person must be present when evidence is taken under this Division, unless this Act or any other law permits the evidence to be taken in the accused person’s absence. (2) The Magistrate may excuse the accused person from attending during the taking of evidence if satisfied that the accused person will be represented by an Australian legal practitioner while the evidence is taken or if satisfied that the evidence is not applicable to the accused person. (3) A period during which the accused person is so excused is taken to be an adjournment for the purposes of dealing with the accused person. (4) Evidence may commence or continue to be taken in the absence of an accused person who has not been excused from attending if: (a) no good and proper reason is shown for the absence of the accused person, and (b) a copy of all relevant written statements, and copies of any proposed exhibits identified in the statements (or a notice relating to inspection of them), have been served on the accused person in accordance with this Part and the accused person has been informed of the time set by the Magistrate for taking of the evidence.

[2-s 88] Evidentiary effect of statements 88 (1) A written statement, or any other kind of statement permitted to be tendered under Part 3A of Chapter 6, is, if tendered by the prosecutor in accordance with this Division, admissible as evidence for the purposes of this Division to the same extent as if it were oral evidence to the like effect given under this Division by the same person. (2) Any document or other thing identified in any statement admitted as evidence under this Division is, if the document or other thing is produced as an exhibit in the committal proceedings, to be treated as if it had been identified before the Magistrate by the person who made the statement. (3) This section does not operate to make a statement admissible if it is not admissible because of another provision made by or under this Division.

[2-s 89] Statements must comply with requirements 89 (1) A written statement, or another kind of statement permitted to be tendered under Part 3A of Chapter 6, is not admissible as evidence for the purposes of this Division unless this Division, and any applicable requirements specified by or under that Part, are complied with in relation to the statement and any associated exhibits or documents. (2) A statement that is not admissible as evidence under this section may nevertheless be admitted as evidence if otherwise admissible in accordance with any rule or law of evidence. (3) A statement sought to be admitted for the purposes of this Division must be served on the accused person on or before the day set by the Magistrate for that purpose.

[2-s 90] Evidence not to be admitted 90 (1) The Magistrate must refuse to admit evidence sought to be adduced by the

122

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 102 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:27 bwpageid:: 122:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 93]

prosecutor under this Division if, in relation to that evidence, this Division or any applicable requirements specified by or under Part 3A of Chapter 6, have not been complied with by the prosecutor. (2) Despite subsection (1), the Magistrate may admit the evidence sought to be adduced if the Magistrate is satisfied that: (a) the non-compliance is trivial in nature, or (b) there are other good reasons to excuse the non-compliance, and admit the evidence, in the circumstances of the case.

[2-s 91] Magistrate may set aside requirements for statements 91 (1) In any committal proceedings, the Magistrate may dispense with all or any of the following requirements relating to statements or exhibits: (a) service of documents on the accused person, (b) provision to the accused person of a reasonable opportunity to inspect proposed exhibits, (c) specification of the age of the person who made a statement, (d) any requirement specified by the regulations under this Division or Part 3A of Chapter 6, if the regulations do not prohibit the Magistrate from dispensing with the requirement. (2) A requirement may be dispensed with under this section only on an application by the accused person or with the consent of the accused person. Note. Some of these requirements are made by or under Part 3A of Chapter 6.

[2-s 92] False statements or representations 92 (1) A person who made a written statement tendered in committal proceedings under this Division is guilty of an offence if the statement contains any matter: (a) that, at the time the statement was made, the person knew to be false, or did not believe to be true, in any material respect, and (b) that was inserted or caused to be inserted by the person in the statement. Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. (2) A person who made a representation given in evidence under this Division in the form of a recorded statement is guilty of an offence if the representation contains any matter that, at the time the representation was made, the person knew to be false, or did not believe to be true, in any material respect. Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. DIVISION 7 — COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL WHERE UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED RAISED [Div 7 insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 93] Committal for trial where unfitness to be tried raised 93 (1) The Magistrate may commit an accused person for trial for an offence if: (a) the question of the person’s unfitness to be tried for the offence is raised by the accused person, the prosecutor or the Magistrate, and (b) if the question is raised by the accused person or the prosecutor, the Magistrate is satisfied that it has been raised in good faith. (2) The question of the person’s unfitness to be tried for an offence may be raised at any time in the committal proceedings.

123

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 103 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:27 bwpageid:: 123:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 93

[2-s 93]

s 93

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(3) The Magistrate may require a psychiatric or other report relating to the accused person to be supplied to the Magistrate by the accused person or the prosecutor before committing a person for trial under this section. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 93 Committal for trial where unfitness to be tried raised . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 93.1]

[2-s 93.1] Committal for trial where unfitness to be tried raised In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General noted that the Local Court does not presently have jurisdiction if there are questions about an accused person’s fitness to be tried and “it is not intended that magistrates should have to bring their minds to substantively consider whether the accused is in fact unfit, as it would duplicate the process of fitness inquiries in the higher courts”. Sections 93 and 94 permit a question as to fitness to be raised in good faith before a magistrate and permit a magistrate under s 93(3) to require a psychiatric or other report to be obtained. In the second reading speech, the Attorney General said that it is “expected that this power may be used where obtaining a report earlier would assist in reducing the delay caused by waiting for reports to be prepared for the fitness inquiry in the higher court”. As to the question of fitness being raised in good faith, see s 10(2) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 at [17-2130]. If an accused person is committed for trial under ss 93 and 94, and the person is found fit to be tried or the court is satisfied that the question of fitness is no longer raised, s 13A Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 at [17-2153] provides that the higher court can either retain the case for trial or sentence or remit it for case conferencing in the Local Court. The sentencing discount scheme is modified in these cases so that if an accused is found fit and pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, he or she may be eligible for a 25 per cent discount for the utilitarian value of the plea: s 25D(5) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 at [5-s 25D].

[2-s 94] Committal may take place after charge certification 94 The Magistrate may commit an accused person for trial under this Division only: (a) if the charge certificate has been filed under Division 4 and a case conference is not required to be held in the committal proceedings, or (b) if the charge certificate has been filed under Division 4 and a case conference has not yet been held in the committal proceedings, or (c) if the case conference certificate for the proceedings has been filed in the committal proceedings. DIVISION 8 — COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL OR SENTENCE [Div 8 insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 95] Committal timing generally 95 (1) The Magistrate in committal proceedings is to commit the accused person for trial or sentence: (a) after the case conference certificate is filed under Division 5, or (b) if a case conference is not required to be held in the proceedings, after the charge certificate is filed under Division 4. Note. The Magistrate may, at any time, adjourn the proceedings where it appears to the Magistrate to be necessary or advisable to do so (see sections 40 and 58(a)).

(2) Despite subsection (1), a Magistrate may commit an accused person for sentence:

124

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 104 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:28 bwpageid:: 124:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 99]

(a) before a charge certificate is filed, if the prosecutor required to file the charge certificate advises the Magistrate that the prosecutor consents to the accused person being committed for sentence for that offence, or (b) if a charge certificate has been filed but no case conference has yet been held. (3) This section does not prevent the Magistrate from committing an accused person for trial under Division 7. (4) Before committing an accused person under this section, the Magistrate must ascertain whether or not the accused person pleads guilty to the offences that are being proceeded with.

[2-s 96] Committal for trial 96 (1) The Magistrate must commit an accused person for trial for an offence unless the Magistrate accepts a plea of guilty to the offence by the accused person. (2) In the case of an accused person that is a corporation that is to be committed for trial, the Magistrate is to make an order authorising an indictment to be filed for the offence named in the order or for such other offence as the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions considers proper.

[2-s 97] Guilty pleas and committal for sentence 97 (1) An accused person may at any time in committal proceedings plead guilty to an offence. (2) The Magistrate may accept or reject a guilty plea. (3) The Magistrate must not accept a guilty plea before the time at which an accused person may be committed for sentence under section 95. (4) Rejection of a guilty plea does not prevent an accused person from pleading guilty at a later stage in the committal proceedings. (5) If the guilty plea is rejected by the Magistrate, the committal proceedings continue as if the accused person had not pleaded guilty. (6) If the guilty plea is accepted, the Magistrate must commit the accused person to the District Court or the Supreme Court for sentence.

[2-s 98] Committal of unrepresented persons 98 If an accused person is not represented by an Australian legal practitioner, the Magistrate must not commit the accused person for trial or sentence unless the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused person has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation for, or legal advice about, the committal proceedings. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 98 Unrepresented persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 98.1]

[2-s 98.1] Unrepresented persons In the second reading speech (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 2017), the Attorney General noted that the requirement in s 98 was a safeguard for an unrepresented accused person because of the strict application of the sentence discount scheme.

[2-s 99] Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions may direct that no further proceedings be taken 99 (1) If a guilty plea is accepted under this Part, the Attorney General or the

125

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 105 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:28 bwpageid:: 125:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 99

[2-s 99]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 99

Director of Public Prosecutions may, at their discretion, direct in writing that no further proceedings be taken against the accused person under this Part for the offence concerned. (2) No further proceedings may be taken against the accused person under this Part for the offence if a direction is given. Note. Section 44 requires the release of the accused person once a certificate is delivered to the Supreme Court after a direction is given. DIVISION 9 — PROCEDURE ON COMMITTAL [Div 9 insrt Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 100] Procedure applicable after committal for sentence 100 (1) All proceedings (whether under this or any other Act) relating to a committal for trial apply, so far as practicable, to a committal of an accused person after a guilty plea is accepted. (2) For the purposes of the venue or change of venue of consequent proceedings, a committal is taken to be a committal for trial.

[2-s 101] Higher court may refer accused person back to Magistrate 101 (1) A Judge of the District Court or the Supreme Court before whom an accused person is brought under section 97(6) may order that the committal proceedings be continued before a Magistrate if: (a) it appears to the Judge from the information or evidence given to or before the Judge that the facts in respect of which a court attendance notice was issued do not support the offence to which the accused person pleaded guilty, or (b) the prosecutor requests the order be made, or (c) for any other reason, the Judge thinks fit to do so. (2) On the resumption of the committal proceedings, the proceedings continue as if the person had not pleaded guilty.

[2-s 102] Disposal of proceedings by higher court 102 (1) The District Court or the Supreme Court may proceed to sentence or otherwise deal with an accused person brought before the Court under section 97 as if the accused person had on arraignment at any sittings of the Court pleaded guilty to the offence on an indictment filed or presented by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2) An accused person who is sentenced or otherwise dealt with under this section is for the purposes of any Act or law (whether enacted before or after the commencement of this section) taken to be convicted on indictment of the offence concerned.

[2-s 103] Change to not guilty plea in higher court 103 (1) If an accused person brought before the District Court or the Supreme Court under section 97 or this Division changes to not guilty the plea to the offence on which the accused person was committed to the Court, the Judge must direct that the accused person be put on trial for the offence.

126

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 106 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:28 bwpageid:: 126:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 109]

(2) On the direction being given, the accused person is taken to have been committed for trial for the offence. The Judge may make the same orders and do the same things (including dealing with the accused person) as a Magistrate can on committing an accused person for trial. (3) The Judge may give directions as to matters preliminary to the trial as the Judge thinks just. (4) A direction may not be given under subsection (1) if the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life, but the Judge may make an order under section 101. (5) Despite subsection (1), the Judge may make an order under section 101 instead of giving a direction under subsection (1), if of the opinion that such an order should be made.

[2-s 104] Meaning of “accused person” 104 In this Division: accused person includes a person who has been committed for sentence to the District Court or Supreme Court.

[2-s 105] Disposal of proceedings by higher court 105

[s 105 rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 106] Change to not guilty plea in higher court 106

[s 106 rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 107] Attorney General or Director of Public Prosecutions may direct that no further proceedings be taken 107

[s 107 rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 108] Meaning of “accused person” 108

[s 108 rep Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[3], opn 30 Apr 2018]

DIVISION 10 — GENERAL PROCEDURES AFTER COMMITTAL [Div 6 heading subst and renum as Div 10 Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[4], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 109] Accused person to be committed to correctional centre 109 (1) An accused person who is committed for trial or sentence in any committal proceedings must be committed to a correctional centre by the Magistrate until the sittings of the court at which the person is to be tried or dealt with or until the accused person is otherwise released by operation of law. (2) A Magistrate may order the issue of a warrant under this section. (3) An authorised officer may, for the purposes of this section, issue a warrant to arrest the accused person. (4) An authorised officer before whom an accused person is brought on arrest on a warrant issued under this section may issue a warrant: (a) committing the accused person to a correctional centre or other place of security, and

127

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 107 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:28 bwpageid:: 127:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 109

[2-s 109]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 109

(b) ordering the accused person to be brought before a court at the time and place specified in the order. Note. Part 4 of Chapter 4 sets out procedures for arrest warrants and warrants of commitment generally. The Bail Act 2013 provides for the circumstances when such a person must or may be granted bail rather than be held in prison. [s 109 am Act 5 of 2014 Sch 2 item 2.15[1], opn 20 May 2014]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 109 Law Part Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 109.0]

[2-s 109.0] Law Part Codes The Law Part Code for s 109(2) is 51527. The Law Part Code for s 109(3) is 51528. The Law Part Code for s 109(4)(a) is 51529.

[2-s 110] Bail acknowledgment to be notified 110 If an accused person committed to a correctional centre on committal for trial or sentence is released on bail, the person who accepts the bail acknowledgment must transmit to the registrar of the relevant court: (a) the bail acknowledgment, and (b) any cash or other thing deposited in compliance with a bail condition. [s 110 subst Act 5 of 2014 Sch 2 item 2.15[3], opn 20 May 2014]

[2-s 111] Papers to be sent to officer of higher court 111 (1) The registrar must, as soon as possible after the end of committal proceedings, give to the appropriate officer of the court to which an accused person is committed for trial or sentence the documents required by the rules. (2) The appropriate officer if an accused person is committed to the Supreme Court is the registrar of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. (3) The appropriate officer if an accused person is committed to the District Court is a registrar of the District Court. (4) The appropriate officer must deliver the documents to the proper officer of the Court at which the trial is to be held or the accused person dealt with, if the Judge presiding so directs. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 111 Documents to be sent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 111.1]

[2-s 111.1] Documents to be sent See r 3.10 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9410] for the documents required to be sent under s 111(1).

[2-s 112] Responsibilities of appropriate officer 112 After the documents are transmitted and before the day of trial or the day on which the accused person is to be dealt with, the appropriate officer has, in relation to the documents, the same duties and is subject to the same liabilities as the Magistrate would

128

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 108 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:29 bwpageid:: 128:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 116]

have or be subject to before the transmission in relation to an order in the nature of certiorari or a rule or order instead of certiorari directed to the Magistrate.

[2-s 113] Copies of trial papers to be given to Director of Public Prosecutions 113 (1) The appropriate officer must, as soon as practicable after receiving a document transmitted by the registrar after an accused person is committed for trial or sentence, transmit a copy of the document to the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2) The copy must be transmitted by the most convenient method, having regard to the necessity to maintain the security of the document.

[2-s 114] Copies of transcripts of evidence 114 (1) An accused person who is committed for trial or sentence is entitled to obtain 1 copy of the transcript of any evidence taken at the committal proceedings, and any written statements tendered at the proceedings. [subs (1) subst Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[5], opn 30 Apr 2018]

(2) The rules may make provision for or with respect to the provision of a copy to the person and the regulations may make provision for or with respect to the fees for the provision of a copy. [subs (2) am Act 28 of 2005 s 6(2) and Sch 5.11[2], opn 15 Aug 2005]

(3) The accused person is also entitled, in accordance with Division 3 of Part 4B of Chapter 6, to a copy of any recorded statement played at the proceedings. [subs (3) insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[7], opn 1 June 2015]

[2-s 115] Meaning of “accused person” 115

In this Division:

accused person includes a person who has been committed for trial or sentence to the District Court or Supreme Court. DIVISION 11 — COSTS [Div 7 heading subst and renum as Div 11 Act 55 of 2017 Sch 1[6], opn 30 Apr 2018]

[2-s 116] When costs may be awarded to accused persons 116 (1) A Magistrate may at the end of committal proceedings order that the prosecutor pay professional costs to the registrar, for payment to the accused person, if: (a) the accused person is discharged as to the subject-matter of the offence or the matter is withdrawn, or (b) the accused person is committed for trial or sentence for an indictable offence which is not the same as the indictable offence the subject of the court attendance notice. (2) The amount of professional costs is to be the amount that the Magistrate considers to be just and reasonable. (3) The order must specify the amount of professional costs payable. (4) If the accused person is discharged, the order for costs may form part of the order discharging the accused person.

129

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 109 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:29 bwpageid:: 129:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 116

[2-s 116]

s 116

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(5) In this section: professional costs means costs (other than court costs) relating to professional expenses and disbursements (including witnesses’ expenses) in respect of proceedings before a Magistrate. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 116 Order for professional costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The timing of the application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs against public prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Just and reasonable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeals against orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 116.1] [2-s 116.5] [2-s 116.10] [2-s 116.15] [2-s 116.20]

[2-s 116.1] Order for professional costs Section 116(1) empowers a magistrate, at the end of committal proceedings, to order the prosecutor to pay professional costs to the accused person where: (a) the accused person is discharged as to the subject matter of the offence: s 116(1)(a); (b) the matter is withdrawn: s 116(1)(a); (c) the accused person is committed for trial or sentence for an indictable offence which is not the same as the indictable offence the subject of the court attendance notice: s 116(1)(b). “Professional costs” are defined in s 116(5). Under s 41A(1) of the repealed Justices Act 1902, there was no power to order costs against the prosecutor unless there was an order discharging the defendant or committal for trial took place for an offence other than that ordinarily charged. Section 116(1)(a) now empowers a magistrate to order costs where a matter is withdrawn. Where the defendant died following her discharge under repealed s 41(6) Justices Act but before an order for costs was made, it was held that the magistrate still had power to make an order for costs: Healey v Williams (1985) 10 FCR 254; 64 ALR 140. [2-s 116.5] The timing of the application Section 116(1) provides that an order may be made “at the end of committal proceedings”. If the accused person is discharged, the order for costs may form part of the order discharging the accused person: s 116(4). Under repealed s 41A Justices Act 1902, it had been held that an application for costs must be made in such a way that an order for costs would form part of the process discharging the defendant. If no application had been made at the time of discharge and no date had been sought on which to make an application, there was nothing on foot and the process of discharge was complete. There was no jurisdiction to order costs where the application for costs was initiated on a day subsequent to discharge of the defendant: Fosse v DPP (1989) 16 NSWLR 540; 42 A Crim R 289; R v Manley (2000) 49 NSWLR 203; 112 A Crim R 570; [2000] NSWCCA 196; BC200002821 at [3] and [60]. Given the opening words of s 116(1) and (4), the prudent course would be to make application for costs before the formal order of discharge is made. [2-s 116.10] Costs against public prosecutors Section 117 constitutes a statutory fetter upon the discretion to order costs against a public prosecutor. See [2-s 117.1]. [2-s 116.15] Just and reasonable The amount of professional costs is to be the amount that the Magistrate considers to be “just and reasonable”. The term “just and reasonable” in s 52 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (a costs provision) was considered in Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd v Maritime Services Board (NSW) (1995) 36 NSWLR 552 at 560–4; 78 A Crim R 368; BC9504766 where it was held that the requirement that an order must be both just and reasonable entails both a fair hearing on the merits of the application and that the terms of the order finally made will be in themselves reasonable. See Ly v Jenkins (2001) 114 FCR 237; 187 ALR 178; BC200107236; [2001] FCA 1640 for consideration of whether costs were “just and reasonable” under repealed s 81 Justices Act 1902 (see now

130

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 110 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:29 bwpageid:: 130:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 117.1]

[2-s 211] ff) where they were not directly incurred by the prosecutor ([13], [129], [134]), where they involved expenses of witnesses ([27], [159], [160]), where they related to the investigation of an offence ([41], [132], [133]), where they were incurred “in-house” by a corporation ([160]) and where the costs order was sought in a foreign currency ([129], [155]). The onus lies upon the party seeking costs to establish such an entitlement and to establish that the costs claimed are just and reasonable: Director General NSW Dept of Agriculture v Temmingh [2003] NSWSC 598; BC200303816 at [11]. [2-s 116.20] Appeals against orders The prosecutor may appeal to the District Court against any order for costs made by a Magistrate against the prosecutor in respect of committal proceedings taken by the prosecutor: s 23(2)(a) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 23]. The prosecutor may appeal to the Supreme Court, on a question of law alone, against an order for costs made by a Magistrate against the prosecutor in any committal proceedings: s 56(1)(d) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 56].

[2-s 117] Limit on circumstances when costs may be awarded against a public officer 117 (1) Professional costs are not to be awarded in favour of an accused person in any committal proceedings unless the Magistrate is satisfied as to any one or more of the following: (a) that the investigation into the alleged offence was conducted in an unreasonable or improper manner, (b) that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable cause or in bad faith or were conducted by the prosecutor in an improper manner, (c) that the prosecution unreasonably failed to investigate (or to investigate properly) any relevant matter of which it was aware or ought reasonably to have been aware and which suggested either that the accused person might not be guilty or that, for any other reason, the proceedings should not have been brought, (d) that, because of other exceptional circumstances relating to the conduct of the proceedings by the prosecutor, it is just and reasonable to award costs. (2) This section does not apply to the awarding of costs against a prosecutor acting in a private capacity. (3) In this section: professional costs means costs (other than court costs) relating to professional expenses and disbursements (including witnesses’ expenses) in respect of proceedings before a Magistrate. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 117 Costs against public officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connection between reasons for discharge and s 117(1) factors . . . Costs against private prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 117.1] [2-s 117.5] [2-s 117.10]

[2-s 117.1] Costs against public officers The onus rests upon the accused person to bring the case within the exceptions to the general rule laid down by s 117(1) that costs are not to be awarded in favour of an accused person: Fosse v DPP [1999] NSWSC 367; BC9901959 at [16]. To fall within s 117(1)(d), the accused person has to establish something about the conduct of the proceedings being an “exceptional circumstance” other than some matter mentioned in subss (a), (b) or (c). In that regard, the mere fact that the proceedings were resolved in the accused

131

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 111 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:29 bwpageid:: 131:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 117

[2-s 117.1]

s 117

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

person’s favour was not enough. There has to be something in relation to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted that had led to it being just and reasonable for a costs order to be made: Fosse v DPP, above at [30]; Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Farley (2001) 51 NSWLR 494; [2001] NSWSC 326; BC200101937 at [16]. One way of testing whether a proceeding is instituted “without reasonable cause” is to ask whether, upon the facts apparent to the prosecutor at the time of instituting the proceedings, there was no substantial prospect of success, and if success depends upon the resolution in the prosecutor’s favour of one or more arguable points of law, it is inappropriate to stigmatise the proceeding as being “without reasonable cause”, but where on the prosecutor’s own version of the facts it is clear that the proceedings must fail, it may properly be said that the proceeding lacks reasonable cause: Canceri v Taylor (1994) 123 ALR 667 at 676; 55 IR 316 at 324–5; BC9405762. [2-s 117.5] Connection between reasons for discharge and s 117(1) factors The order for the payment of costs is a different step from the order discharging an accused person, or committal for a different offence, and there is no requirement that there be any connection between the basis on which the accused person was discharged and the facts and circumstances about which the court must be satisfied under s 117(1) before ordering costs: R v Hunt [1999] NSWCCA 375; BC9907764; (1999) 6 Crim LN 98 [1092]. Where committal proceedings were aborted and reheard by a second magistrate, that magistrate had power to order costs in respect of the aborted proceedings: Hanna v Horler (1999) 154 FLR 166; [1999] NSWSC 1159; BC9907868; (1999) 6 Crim LN 98 [1091]. [2-s 117.10] Costs against private prosecutors With respect to proceedings commenced by a private prosecutor, the award of costs in committal cases to an accused person, proceedings against whom have been dismissed, is entirely within the magistrate’s (judicial) discretion. There is no rule that costs must follow the event or that a successful accused person is entitled to costs even if a successful private prosecutor is not. The magistrate must not consider irrelevant matters unconnected with the instant case: Barton v Berman [1980] 1 NSWLR 63; followed in Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472; 24 A Crim R 304; BC8600588. The general principles as to costs in criminal proceedings in Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; 97 ALR 45; BC9002896 ought be considered, although keeping in mind that Latoudis deals with a summary prosecution and not committal proceedings.

[2-s 118] Costs on adjournment 118 (1) A Magistrate may in any committal proceedings, at his or her discretion or on the application of the prosecutor or an accused person, order that one party pay costs if the matter is adjourned. (2) An order may be made only if the Magistrate is satisfied that the other party has incurred additional costs because of the unreasonable conduct or delay of the party against whom the order is made. (3) An order may be made whatever the result of the proceedings. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 118 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costs on adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeal from order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2 s 118.0] Law Part Code

[2 s 118.0] [2-s 118.1] [2-s 118.5]

The Law Part Code for s 118(1) is 51530.

[2-s 118.1] Costs on adjournment Section 118 empowers a magistrate in committal proceedings, at his or her discretion: (a) on the application of the prosecutor or an accused person: s 118(1);

132

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 112 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:30 bwpageid:: 132:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 121]

(b) to order that one party pay costs if the matter is adjourned: s 118(2); (c) but only if the magistrate is satisfied that the other party has incurred additional costs: s 118(2); (d) by reason of the unreasonable conduct or delay of the party against whom the order is made: s 118(2); and (e) that such an order may be made whatever the result of the proceedings: s 118(3). There was no equivalent power under repealed s 41A Justices Act 1902. The power to order costs under repealed s 65(3) Justices Act (R v Le Boursicot (1994) 79 A Crim R 548) did not extend to committal proceedings given the different wording in repealed s 30. In Commissioner of Police v Fandakis [2001] NSWSC 586; BC200103907, it was held that there was no power, express or implied, to order costs for hearing time lost in committal proceedings resulting from an unsuccessful public interest immunity claim. Whether such an application could now be entertained would depend upon whether s 118 was satisfied — had a “party” to the proceedings caused additional costs to be incurred by unreasonable conduct or delay? [2-s 118.5] Appeal from order The prosecutor may appeal to the District Court against any order for costs made by a Magistrate against the prosecutor in respect of committal proceedings taken by the prosecutor: s 23(2)(a) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 23]. The prosecutor may appeal to the Supreme Court, on a question of law alone, against an order for costs made by a Magistrate against the prosecutor in any committal proceedings: s 56(1)(d) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 56]. An accused person may appeal to the District Court against “sentence” which includes any order for costs made by a Magistrate against a person in connection with committal proceedings taken against the person: ss 3, 11 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 3] and [4-s 11]. An accused person may appeal to the Supreme Court against “sentence” which includes such an order for costs: ss 3, 52, 53 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 at [4-s 3], [4-s 52], [4-s 53].

[2-s 119] Content of costs orders 119 The order must specify the amount of costs payable or may provide for the determination of the amount at the end of the proceedings.

[2-s 120] Enforcement of costs orders 120 An order made by a Magistrate under this Division for the payment of costs is taken to be a fine within the meaning of the Fines Act 1996. PART 3 — TRIAL PROCEDURES [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[44], opn 7 July 2003]

DIVISION 1 — LISTING [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[44], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 121] Definitions 121

In this Part:

Criminal Listing Director means: (a) in relation to the Supreme Court — the public servant employed in the Supreme Court to make arrangements for the listing of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before the Supreme Court, and

133

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 113 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:30 bwpageid:: 133:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 121

[2-s 121]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 121

(b) in relation to the District Court — the public servant employed in the District Court to make arrangements for the listing of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before the District Court, and (c) any public servant authorised by a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), or in accordance with the regulations, to exercise any functions of the Criminal Listing Director. [def subst Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009]

criminal proceedings means: (a) proceedings relating to the trial of a person before the Supreme Court or the District Court, (b) proceedings relating to the sentencing of a person by the Supreme Court or the District Court, or (c) proceedings relating to an appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to the District Court in its criminal jurisdiction. [def am Act 15 of 2015 Sch 2.14[2], opn 8 July 2015] [s 121 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[23], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[45], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[46], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 122] Listing 122 (1) The Criminal Listing Director is, subject to the regulations, to make arrangements for the listing of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before the Supreme Court or the District Court. [subs (1) am Act 17 of 1991 s 3 and Sch 1]

(1A) In making such listing arrangements, the Criminal Listing Director is responsible to: (a) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before that Court, or (b) the Chief Judge of the District Court, in the case of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before that Court. [subs (1A) insrt Act 132 of 1989 s 3 and Sch 1; am Act 17 of 1991 s 3 and Sch 1]

(2) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the practice and procedure to be adopted for the listing of criminal proceedings that are to be heard and determined before the Supreme Court or the District Court. (3) Regulations made under this section prevail over rules of court, or any direction or order of a court, to the extent of any inconsistency. [s 122 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[23], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[45], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 122 Listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 122.1] [2-s 122.1] Listing See Pt 2 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5040] and following for procedural matters with respect to listing.

[2-s 123] Authority of Criminal Listing Director 123 It is the duty of all persons involved in criminal proceedings to abide, as far as practicable, by the arrangements made by the Criminal Listing Director in exercising functions under this Act. [s 123 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[23], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[45], opn 7 July 2003]

134

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 114 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:30 bwpageid:: 134:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 126]

[2-s 124] Liaison 124 For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on the Criminal Listing Director, the Criminal Listing Director may liaise with the Judges and officers of the Supreme Court and the District Court, prosecutors, accused persons and their Australian legal practitioners, and other persons involved in criminal proceedings. [s 124 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[23], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[45], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[47], opn 7 July 2003; Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[6], opn 4 Dec 2006]

[2-s 125] Certain matters not affected 125 (1) This Division does not authorise the Criminal Listing Director: (a) to fix or change the venue of proceedings, except with the consent of the accused person and the prosecutor, or (b) to determine when or where a court is to exercise its jurisdiction. [subs (1) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[49], opn 7 July 2003]

(2) Nothing in this Division relating to the Criminal Listing Director affects: (a) the power of the Attorney General to fix or change the venue of any matter, (b) the power of a court to regulate proceedings before it, (c) the power of a court to adjourn any matter, (d) proceedings in the Court of Criminal Appeal, (e) proceedings in the Supreme Court in its summary jurisdiction, or (f) proceedings under the Bail Act 2013. [subs (2) am Act 5 of 2014 Sch 2 item 2.15[1], opn 20 May 2014] [s 125 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[23], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[45], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[48], opn 7 July 2003]

DIVISION 2 — COMMENCEMENT AND NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[50], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 126] Signing of indictments 126 (1) An indictment shall be signed: (a) by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or (b) for and on behalf of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions by: (i) a Crown Prosecutor, (ii) a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, or (iii) a person authorised under subsection (2) to sign indictments. [subs (1) am Act 209 of 1987 s 3 and Sch 7]

(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions may, by order in writing, authorise a person to sign indictments for and on behalf of the Director. (3) It shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that an indictment signed by a person for and on behalf of the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions was signed by a person authorised to do so. (4) A certificate signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that a

135

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 115 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:30 bwpageid:: 135:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 126

[2-s 126]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 126

specified person was authorised during a specified period to sign indictments for and on behalf of the Director is admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings and is evidence of the matters certified. [s 126 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[28], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[51], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 126 Authorised person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 126.1]

[2-s 126.1] Authorised person Where an indictment was not signed by a person authorised to sign an indictment it was a fundamental defect in the proceedings and the conviction was quashed as the trial was a nullity: R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; 156 A Crim R 150; [2005] NSWCCA 2; BC200500703; (2005) 12 Crim LN 32 [1847]; R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067; (2005) 12 Crim LN 62 [1913] where it was held that the purpose of the section is to limit the persons who can authorise the commencement of a prosecution on indictment and thereby warrant to the court that the proceedings are taken in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions and are regularly brought. It was also held in Janceski that the court and the accused are entitled to assume where the indictment is signed by an authorised person that the proper procedures leading up to the presentation of the indictment have been followed, such as the finding of a bill or the determination to present an ex officio indictment. Following the decisions in Halmi and Janceski, s 16(1)(i) at [2-s 16] was enacted to save indictments which breached the Halmi and Janceski principle. Indictments which would have been invalid under that principle are taken to be valid as are the proceedings undertaken pursuant to those indictments: cl 47, Schedule 2, Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-Sch 2].

[2-s 127] Manner of presenting indictments 127 The regulations and (subject to the regulations) the rules of court may make provision for or with respect to the manner of presenting indictments (including by the filing of the indictment in a court registry). [s 127 insrt Act 7 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[5], opn 19 Nov 2001; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[52], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 127 Manner of presenting indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 127.1]

[2-s 127.1] Manner of presenting indictments Clause 10D of Pt 53 District Court Rules at [2-12,072] provides for the manner of presenting indictments in the District Court and provides that an indictment may be presented by the filing of a copy with the registrar and a copy must be served on the accused within 14 days after filing.

[2-s 128] Directions as to indictments to be presented in District Court 128 (1) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may issue a practice note on behalf of the Supreme Court giving directions to prosecutors with respect to the classes of indictments that are to be presented to the District Court rather than the Supreme Court. [subs (1) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[54], opn 7 July 2003]

(2) The Chief Justice may exempt a particular indictment from any such direction. (3) The Supreme Court may reject an indictment:

136

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 116 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:31 bwpageid:: 136:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 129.1]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

(a) that is of a class to which any such direction applies, and (b) that was presented after the direction was given, and (c) that has not been exempted from the direction by the Chief Justice. (4) The rejection of an indictment does not preclude the presentation of a further indictment in accordance with any such direction. [s 128 insrt Act 86 of 1997 s 4 and Sch 2[1], opn 4 Jan 1997; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[28], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[53], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 128 Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 128.1]

[2-s 128.1] Directions The Chief Justice has issued Practice Note SC CL 2 at [28-5005] giving directions for the purpose of s 128. In Hayward v R [2018] NSWCCA 104; BC201804516 an exemption was granted to an indictment filed in the District Court in relation to child sexual offences on condition that a hearing would be held in the Supreme Court to determine whether certain reports were admissible in the Supreme Court although not admissible in the District Court. Ultimately it was held that the reports were not admissible in the Supreme Court so that the matter was remitted to the District Court.

[2-s 129] Time within which indictment to be presented 129 (1) In this section, relevant court, in relation to a matter, means the Supreme Court or the District Court before which the matter has been listed for trial or mention. (2) An indictment is to be presented within 4 weeks after the committal of the accused person for trial, except as provided by this section. (3) The time within which the indictment is to be presented may be extended: (a) by the regulations or (subject to the regulations) the rules of the relevant court, or (b) by order of the relevant court. (4) If an indictment is not presented within the time required by this section, the relevant court may: (a) proceed with the trial if an indictment has been presented, or (b) adjourn the proceedings, or (c) take such other action as it thinks appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (5) The prosecutor has no right to an adjournment merely because an indictment has not been presented. (6) The relevant court must, in exercising any power under this section, have regard to the fact that the Crown does not have a right of appeal if the accused person is acquitted. (7) This section does not affect the powers of the relevant court under section 21. [subs (7) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[56], opn 7 July 2003] [s 129 subst Act 7 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[6], opn 19 Nov 2001; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[55], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 129 Operation of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time for presenting indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 117 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:31 bwpageid:: 137:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 129.1] [2-s 129.5]

Criminal Procedure

s 129

[2-s 129.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 129

[2-s 129.1] Operation of section This section replaces s 54 which was inserted by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-trial Disclosure) Act 2001. That section did not apply to proceedings in which the accused person was committed for trial before 19 November 2001: cl 23, Sch 2, Criminal Procedure Act. The court has a discretion to allow the presentation of an indictment outside the time prescribed pursuant to s 129(4): JSM v R [2010] NSWCCA 255; BC2011010646; 18(7) Crim LN [2925]. The discretion will take into account both the public interest in the trial proceeding and the interests of the accused including any prejudice arising from the failure to present the indictment within the time limit. [2-s 129.5] Time for presenting indictments Clause 10E(1) of Pt 53 District Court Rules at [2-12,073] provides, for the purpose of s 54(3)(a) of the Act, that the time for presenting an indictment at a relevant proclaimed place is extended to eight weeks after the committal of the accused person for trial. Clause 10E(2) provides that a “relevant proclaimed place” is a proclaimed place other than Sydney, Sydney West, Newcastle, Wollongong, Gosford, Lismore, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo or Bathurst. An application for an order under s 129(3)(b) to extend the time for filing an indictment must be made before the time for filing the indictment has expired and may be made in court or by written application to the court: cl 10F, Pt 53 District Court Rules at [2-12,074]. See cl 8 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5060] with respect to the timing of an application to the Supreme Court or District Court for an order staying or quashing an indictment and any demurrer to an indictment.

[2-s 130] Trial proceedings after presentation of indictment and before empanelment of jury 130 (1) In this section, court means the Supreme Court or District Court. (2) The court has jurisdiction with respect to the conduct of proceedings on indictment as soon as the indictment is presented and the accused person is arraigned, and any orders that may be made by the court for the purposes of the trial in the absence of a jury may be made before a jury is empanelled for the trial. (3) If proceedings are held for the purpose of making any such orders after the indictment is presented to commence the trial and before the jury is empanelled: (a) the proceedings are part of the trial of the accused person, and (b) the accused person is to be arraigned again on the indictment when the jury is empanelled for the continuation of the trial. (4) Nothing in this section requires a jury to be empanelled if the accused person pleads guilty to an offence during proceedings to which this section applies. (5) This section applies to proceedings in respect of indictments presented after the commencement of this section. [s 130 insrt Act 86 of 1997 s 4 and Sch 2[2], opn 4 Jan 1998; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[28], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[57], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[58], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 130 Arraignment before the jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 130.1]

[2-s 130.1] Arraignment before the jury The section provides that where there have been pre-trial determinations made after arraignment but before the jury is empanelled, the accused must be re-arraigned before the jury panel. It was held in R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; 223 ALR 580; [2005] NSWCCA 281; BC200506067; (2005) 12(8) Crim LN [1914] that, subject to this section, there is no necessity to re-arraign an accused before the jury panel if the accused has

138

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 118 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:31 bwpageid:: 138:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 130A.10]

already been arraigned. However, where the accused is re-arraigned on an indictment and pleads not guilty then the accused is put to trial on that indictment and, if it is invalid, the trial will be a nullity notwithstanding that there is a valid indictment otherwise on the court file. There is no need for the accused to be arraigned for a second time after the jury has been empanelled as the section imposes no such requirement: DS v R [2012] NSWCCA 159; BC201205518; 19(8) Crim LN [3100]. See s 16 at [2-s 16] for defects which do not affect the validity of an indictment.

[2-s 130A] Pre-trial orders and orders made during trial bind trial Judge 130A (1) A pre-trial order made by a Judge in proceedings on indictment is binding on the trial Judge in those proceedings unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, it would not be in the interests of justice for the order to be binding. (2) If, on an appeal against a conviction for an offence in proceedings on indictment, a new trial is ordered, a pre-trial order made by a Judge, or an order made by the trial Judge, in relation to the proceedings from which the conviction arose is binding on the trial Judge hearing the fresh trial proceedings unless: (a) in the opinion of the trial Judge hearing the fresh trial proceedings, it would not be in the interests of justice for that order to be binding, or (b) that order is inconsistent with an order made on appeal. (3) If proceedings on indictment before a trial Judge are discontinued for any reason, a pre-trial order made by a Judge, or an order made by the trial Judge, in relation to those proceedings is binding on a trial Judge hearing any subsequent trial proceedings relating to the same offence as the discontinued proceedings unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge hearing the subsequent trial proceedings, it would not be in the interests of justice for the order to be binding. (4) In this section, pre-trial order means any order made or given after the indictment is first presented but before the empanelment of a jury for a trial. [subs (4) am Act 88 of 2014 Sch 1 item 1.5[1], opn 8 Jan 2015]

(5) To avoid doubt, this section extends to a ruling given on the admissibility of evidence. [subs (5) insrt Act 88 of 2014 Sch 1 item 1.5[2], opn 8 Jan 2015] [s 130A subst Act 112 of 2009 Sch 1, opn 1 Feb 2010]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 130A Commencement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 130A.5] Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 130A.10] [2-s 130A.5] Commencement Section 130A was substituted by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Act 2009. The substituted section applies only in respect of proceedings in which the indictment was presented or filed on or after 1 February 2010: see cl 62 Sch 2, Criminal Procedure Act at [2-Sch 2]. [2-s 130A.10] Scope of the section In the second reading speech for the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Bill 2009, the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Attorney General, said (Legislative Council, Hansard, 1 December 2009): Schedule 1 [3] substitutes section 130A of the Principal Act to extend its application to all proceedings on indictment, not just sex offences. Further, all orders made during the course of

139

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 119 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:31 bwpageid:: 139:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 130A

[2-s 130A.10]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 130A

a trial, not just pre-trial orders, will be binding on a subsequent trial judge.

[2-s 131] Trial by jury in criminal proceedings 131 Criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or the District Court are to be tried by a jury, except as otherwise provided by this Part. [s 131 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[12], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[59], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 131 Trial by jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 131.1]

[2-s 131.1] Trial by jury As to the procedures to be followed by a court in a trial by jury, see Trial Procedure at [7-450] and following and the Jury Act at [29-50,400] and following. In respect of trial for Commonwealth offences, the provisions of the Jury Act are to be read subject to s 80 of the Constitution which requires all offences be dealt with by jury, that is according to the essential features of a jury as understood by the common law at the time of federation: see Brownlee v R (2001) 207 CLR 278; 108 ALR 301; [2001] HCA 36; BC200103185 and Ng v R (2003) 217 CLR 521; 197 ALR 10; [2003] HCA 20; BC200301555; (2003) 10 Crim LN [1542].

[2-s 132] Orders for trial by Judge alone 132 (1) An accused person or the prosecutor in criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or District Court may apply to the court for an order that the accused person be tried by a Judge alone (a trial by judge order). (2) The court must make a trial by judge order if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone. (3) If the accused person does not agree to being tried by a Judge alone, the court must not make a trial by judge order. (4) If the prosecutor does not agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court may make a trial by judge order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so. (5) Without limiting subsection (4), the court may refuse to make an order if it considers that the trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards, including (but not limited to) an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness. (6) The court must not make a trial by judge order unless it is satisfied that the accused person has sought and received advice in relation to the effect of such an order from an Australian legal practitioner. (7) The court may make a trial by judge order despite any other provision of this section or section 132A if the court is of the opinion that: (a) there is a substantial risk that acts that may constitute an offence under Division 3 of Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1900 are likely to be committed in respect of any jury or juror, and (b) the risk of those acts occurring may not reasonably be mitigated by other means. [s 132 subst Act 135 of 2010 Sch 12.2, opn 14 Jan 2011]

140

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 120 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:32 bwpageid:: 140:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 132 Trial by judge alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Election by the accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 132.1]

[2-s 132.1] [2-s 132.10]

[2-s 132.1] Trial by judge alone As to the procedure to be followed, see District Court Rules Pt 53 r 10B [2-12,070] and Supreme Court Rules Pt 75 r 3G at [20-26,850]. Either party may make an application for trial by judge alone and, if both parties consent, then the court must allow the application. If the prosecutor applies and the accused does not consent the court cannot make an order for a judge alone trial. If the accused applies and the Crown objects then the court may make an order if it considers it to be in the interests of justice. As to the time for the application of such an order see [2-s 132A]. The application for a trial by judge must be considered against the background that the convention method for trial is by a jury and the public interest in a trial by jury is as a protection of an accused from the executive and judicial power of the state and a means of applying objective community standards in the determination of facts: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Farrugia [2017] NSWCCA 197; BC201712343; 25(6) Crim LN [3977]. It is not a sufficient reason to order a trial by judge alone, that trial without a jury might result in more transparency in a reasoned judgment rather than a simple jury verdict, or the trial is more likely to be shorter and less expensive, or more likely to lead to the “correct” result. See generally the discussion on the significance of trial by jury in R v Belghar, below. The approach to be taken to an application for trial by judge alone, and the relevant factors, was considered in R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; BC201202863; 19(6) Crim LN [3074] where it was held that a judge erred in granting an application on the basis that, because of the accused’s religious faith, he might not receive a fair trial. There was no evidence before the judge to justify that finding. McClellan CJ at CL, in obiter findings, considered a number of matters that his Honour found were either relevant or irrelevant to determining an application. Issues relevant to the determination of an application for trial by judge alone were considered in R v King [2013] NSWSC 448; BC201302092 and R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 661; BC201302789, including the importance of participation of the community in the administration of the criminal justice system. A judge determining an application ought not take into account that a jury is better able to determine issues of credibility than a judge: Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110; BC201504333; 22(6) Crim LN [3539], a case in which in order to forward his defence the accused would have had to disclose his criminal record and an alibi that he was in custody at the time. A trial by judge alone was granted on the peculiar facts of the case. The fact that cross-examination of the complainant might indicate that the accused was refused bail for the offence, the subject of the charge did not give rise to sufficient prejudice to warrant a trial by judge alone: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Farrugia, above. The Court noted that no reason had been given as to why the accused had been refused bail and none relied on by the judge. If the reason had been given, the possible prejudice could have been explored and what could be done to overcome any such prejudice by way of directions examined. Nor was any explanation given for how anything said by the complainant could give rise to an issue as the accused’s custodial status as a result of being charged with the offence. The relevance of substantial past adverse media publicity concerning the accused person on an application for a judge alone trial was considered in R v McNeil (2015) 250 A Crim R 12; [2015] NSWSC 357; BC201505018 and R v Qaumi [2016] NSWSC 1473; BC201610277. The discretion to reject evidence where the probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect has little, if any, role in a trial by judge alone: Abrahamson v R (1994) 63 SASR 139; BC9405598. In a trial by judge alone, the judge is not required to consider a defence which has not been raised or relied upon by the defence: R v Ion (1996) 89 A Crim R 81; BC9604105; (1996) 3 Crim LN 61 [611]. The extent to which a judge can ask questions of witnesses during a trial by judge alone was considered in FB v R [2011] NSWCCA 217; BC201107721; 18(11) Crim LN [2987] where it was

141

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 121 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:32 bwpageid:: 141:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 132

[2-s 132.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 132

held that the trial judge was entitled, within reasonable and legitimate boundaries, to ask questions of witnesses, applying Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263. [2-s 132.10] Election by the accused The election must be made personally by the accused and an election cannot be made by another person on the accused’s behalf: Public Guardian v Guardianship Board (1997) 42 NSWLR 201; BC9702919; (1997) 4 Crim LN 52 [728] where it was held that the Guardianship Board could not appoint a person to make the election on behalf of the accused.

[2-s 132A] Applications for trial by judge alone in criminal proceedings 132A (1) An application for an order under section 132 that an accused person be tried by a Judge alone must be made not less than 28 days before the date fixed for the trial in the Supreme Court or District Court, except with the leave of the court. (2) An application must not be made in a joint trial unless: (a) all other accused person apply to be tried by a Judge alone, and (b) each application is made in respect of all offences with which the accused persons in the trial are charged that are being proceeded with in the trial. (3) An accused person or a prosecutor who applies for an order under section 132 may, at any time before the date fixed for the accused person’s trial, subsequently apply for a trial by a jury. (4) Rules of court may be made with respect to applications under section 132 or this section. [s 132A insrt Act 135 of 2010 Sch 12.2, opn 14 Jan 2011]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 132A Applications made out of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 132A.1]

[2-s 132A.1] Applications made out of time A question has arisen as to the appropriateness of a prosecutor conceding the grant of leave where the application for a trial by judge alone is made on the day of the trial especially where no explanation is proffered as to why the matter could not have been raised earlier: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Farrugia [2017] NSWCCA 197; BC201712343; 25(6) Crim LN [3977].

[2-s 133] Verdict of single Judge 133 (1) A Judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury on the question of the guilt of the accused person. Any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury. (2) A judgment by a Judge in any such case must include the principles of law applied by the Judge and the findings of fact on which the Judge relied. (3) If any Act or law requires a warning to be given to a jury in any such case, the Judge is to take the warning into account in dealing with the matter. [s 133 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[12], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[59], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 133 Judgment after trial by judge alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

142

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 122 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:32 bwpageid:: 142:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 133.1]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 134.5]

[2-s 133.1] Judgment after trial by judge alone The equivalent of s 133(2) and (3) were considered by the High Court in Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; 158 ALR 379; [1999] HCA 68; BC9805921; 5(10) Crim LN [918] where it was held that the subsections created legal imperatives so that a failure to observe either or both of them is to make a wrong decision on a question of law within s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 or that justice has miscarried. The court held that s 133(2) required that the judge expose the reasoning process linking the principles of law with the facts found and justifying the latter and, ultimately, the verdict reached. Section 133(3) obliges a trial judge to take a warning into account and this requires the judge to include in the principles of law applied by the judge the particular requirement for a warning. The trial judge is to indicate why, notwithstanding the warning or as a consequence of it, a particular verdict is reached. A bare statement of the warning is insufficient. In that case a conviction was set aside because the trial judge had failed to include in his judgment reference to the warning which was required to be given in accordance with Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79; 89 ALR 161; BC8902688. The section does not require the judge to publish a judgment in the form a summing up would have taken had the trial been before a jury: R v Winningham (NSWCCA, 10 May 1995, unreported); 2(5) Crim LN [438]. A judge is not required to record all the considerations which have been taken into account in reaching the determination on the question of guilt nor expressly refer to all the matters which necessarily have to be stated to a jury: R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528; BC9505056; 2(7) Crim LN [434]. A judgment was held to be defective where the judge did not refer to evidence of good character of the accused: R v MPW (NSWCCA, 14 December 1995, unreported, BC9507332); 3(1) Crim LN [526]. The principles that are to be applied in giving reasons in a trial by judge alone (including a special hearing) based upon the decision in Fleming (above) were considered in W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110; BC201405596; 21(8) Crim LN [3416]. As to the warnings to be given to a jury, see [2-s 161.1] and following. The necessity for the reasons to disclose an analysis of a particular witness was considered in DW v R (2004) 150 A Crim R 139; [2004] ACTCA 22; BC200407885 where it was held that it was not necessary in all cases for the judge to disclose reasons for rejecting the credibility of a particular witness, for example where it depends upon the impression of the witness. However, the judge must give proper reasons for expressing a preference for one psychiatrist over another on the issue of mental illness where the psychiatrists had different opinions: CJ v R [2012] NSWCCA 258; BC201209878; 20(2) Crim LN [3172].

DIVISION 3 — CASE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS TO REDUCE DELAYS IN PROCEEDINGS [Div 3 subst Act 112 of 2009 Sch 1, opn 1 Feb 2010]

[2-s 134] Purpose 134 (1) The purpose of this Division is to reduce delays in proceedings on indictment by: (a) requiring certain pre-trial disclosure by the prosecution and the defence, and (b) enabling the court to undertake case management where suitable in those proceedings, whether on its own motion or on application by a party to the proceedings. (2) Case management measures that are available to the court under this Division include the ordering of pre-trial hearings, pre-trial conferences and further pre-trial disclosure. The court has a discretion in determining which (if any) of those measures are suitable in the proceedings concerned. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 134 Application of Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 123 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:32 bwpageid:: 143:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 134.5]

Criminal Procedure

s 134

[2-s 134.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

Scope of Division after 2013 amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case management provisions for summary matters in higher courts . Case management of Local Court summary criminal proceedings .

s 134 [2-s 134.10] [2-s 134.15] [2-s 134.20]

[2-s 134.5] Application of Division This Division was substituted by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Act 2009 No 112 (which commenced on 1 February 2010) and has been amended substantially by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-Trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10 (which commenced on 1 September 2013). The 2013 amendments require the prosecution and defence to undertake mandatory pre-trial disclosure of specified matters in proceedings for indictable offences. The 2013 amendments apply only in respect of proceedings in which the indictment was presented or filed on or after the commencement date, 1 September 2013: see cl 79(1) Sch 2 at [2-Sch 2]. This Division, as in force before the 2013 amendments, continues to apply in respect of proceedings in which the indictment was presented or filed before 1 September 2013: see cl 79(2) Sch 2 at [2-Sch 2]. [2-s 134.10] Scope of Division after 2013 amendments In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill is to reform the case management provisions in part 3, division 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. It expands the scope of mandatory disclosure requirements in criminal trials and allows an unfavourable inference to be drawn by a jury against a defendant who fails to comply with a pre-trial disclosure requirement under the division. The new provisions will apply to all trials in the District and the Supreme Court. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill is intended to complete the reforms in the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill. The bills provide opportunities for an accused to provide information and thereby facilitate the course of justice, first, when an accused is spoken to by the police and, secondly, at a time when the prosecution will have outlined its case before trial. The bills also allow an unfavourable inference to be drawn against an accused at trial. ... I now turn to the changes proposed to the Criminal Procedure Act in the Pre-trial Defence Disclosure Bill. This bill provides consequences for choosing to remain silent once criminal proceedings have been committed for trial. Its provisions operate independently of the amendments to the Evidence Act. However, they will complement those changes as they represent a second opportunity for an accused to provide information and thereby facilitate the course of justice. The primary purpose of the new case management regime is to narrow the contested issues at trial. This will lead to shorter trials and will prevent inconvenience to those witnesses whose evidence can be agreed beforehand. Importantly, however, the provisions will also provide a consequence for accused persons who frustrate the criminal justice process by not engaging with the court and the prosecution in identifying the issues in dispute before their trial. ... The changes to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Act will assist in breaking down the wall of silence put up by accused persons seeking to frustrate the criminal justice process and cause delay. Such people wait until their trial to inform the court and the prosecution of the defences they seek to rely on, evidence that is in dispute and the witnesses that the prosecution is required to call in order to prove its case.

144

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 124 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:33 bwpageid:: 144:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 136]

The changes to the case management provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act will also help to ensure the smooth running of criminal cases in the higher courts through effective and efficient case management, as well as complementing the Evidence Act changes by offering a second opportunity for the accused to provide information to the prosecution by way of disclosure obligations, or run the risk of an unfavourable inference. It is a long-held truism that justice delayed is justice denied. All accused persons are entitled to a fair trial. Equally, the prosecution is entitled to an opportunity to present its case against the accused properly and fairly. These reforms will help to reduce delays in the criminal justice process and therefore promote fairness to both prosecution and the accused. For too long, criminals have sought to hide behind a wall of silence in criminal proceedings. [2-s 134.15] Case management provisions for summary matters in higher courts Division 2A of Pt 5 (ss 247A–247Y) at [2-s 247A]ff provides the Supreme Court (in its summary jurisdiction) and the Land and Environment Court with pretrial management powers and procedures similar to (but not identical with) those contained in ss 134–149F. A significant point of difference between the two sets of provisions is the express provision for case management of sentencing hearings in the summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Land and Environment Court, whereas ss 134–149F relate entirely to pretrial case management. Following the enactment of Div 2A of Pt 5, the Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court issued a Practice Note applicable to Class 5 proceedings in that court — see [28-22,005]. [2-s 134.20] Case management of Local Court summary criminal proceedings The case management provisions in ss 134–149F of the Criminal Procedure Act apply to proceedings on indictment only and do not apply to Local Court proceedings: s 134; Andrews v Ardler (2012) 266 FLR 177; [2012] NSWSC 845; BC201205424 at [58]. In Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Wililo [2012] NSWSC 713; BC201204764 at [49]–[50] it was observed that there is no equivalent statutory regime (to ss 134–149F and ss 247A–247Y) in the Criminal Procedure Act applicable to summary trials in the Local Court. However, for some years, there have been procedures for service of prosecution witness statements to the defence in advance of the hearing, with the intention of assisting the efficient, speedy and fair determination of a summary hearing: Director of Public Prosecutions v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647; [2000] NSWCA 103; BC200002228 at [22]–[23]. Provision is made by way of a Practice Note issued by the Chief Magistrate under ss 26(2)(a) and 27 of the Local Court Act 2007 for case management of criminal proceedings in the Local Court — see Local Court Practice Note Crim 1 (issued 24 April 2012) at [28-15,205].

[2-s 135] Definitions 135 (1) In this Division: court means the Supreme Court or District Court. pre-trial conference means a conference held under section 140. pre-trial hearing means a hearing held under section 139. (2) In this Division, a reference to the accused person is to be read as including a reference to the Australian legal practitioner representing the accused person.

[2-s 136] Directions for conduct of proceedings 136 At the first mention of proceedings in the court before which the trial is proposed to be heard, the presiding Judge is to give directions with respect to the future conduct of the trial. [s 136 am Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[1], opn 1 Sep 2013]

145

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 125 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:33 bwpageid:: 145:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 136

[2-s 136.5]

s 136

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 136 Operation of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supreme Court Practice Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . District Court Practice Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 136.5] [2-s 136.10] [2-s 136.15]

[2-s 136.5] Operation of section In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General explained the 2013 amendment to s 136 in the following way (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [1] of schedule 1 amends section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act to remove the requirement for the presiding judge, at the first mention of proceedings before the trial court, to make a direction as to the time by which the prosecution and defence must comply with their mandatory disclosure requirements. In practice, the courts have not applied this part of section 136, as standard directions in practice notes issued in the District Court and the Supreme Court dictate the time frames for service. [2-s 136.10] Supreme Court Practice Note Practice Note SC CL 2 was reissued on 20 September 2013 (to commence on 1 October 2013) to give effect to the 2013 case management amendments: see at [28-5005]. [2-s 136.15] District Court Practice Note District Court Criminal Practice Note 9 issued on 19 August 2013 relating to the 2013 case management amendments: see at [28-10,140].

[2-s 137] Notice of prosecution case to be given to accused person 137

[s 137 rep Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[2], opn 1 Sep 2013]

[2-s 138] Notice of defence response to be given to prosecutor 138

[s 138 rep Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[3], opn 1 Sep 2013]

[2-s 139] Pre-trial hearings 139 (1) At the first mention of proceedings in the court before which the trial is proposed to be heard or at any other time, the court may order the prosecutor and the accused person to attend one or more pre-trial hearings before the court so long as the time appointed for any such hearing occurs after the indictment has been presented or filed. (2) During a pre-trial hearing, the court may make such orders, determinations or findings, or give such directions or rulings, as it thinks appropriate for the efficient management and conduct of the trial. (3) Without limiting subsection (2), the court may take any or all of the following action under that subsection: (a) hear and determine an objection to the indictment, (b) order the holding of a pre-trial conference under section 140, (c) determine the timetable for pre-trial disclosure under section 141, (d) give a direction under section 145(3), (e) give a ruling or make a finding under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 as if the trial had commenced, (f) hear and determine a submission that the case should not proceed to trial,

146

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 126 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:33 bwpageid:: 146:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 140]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

(g) give a ruling on any question of law that might arise at the trial. [subs (3) am Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[4], opn 1 Sep 2013]

(4) Despite any other provision of this Act, the court may make any order, determination or finding, or give any ruling, under this section on application by a party to the proceedings or on the court’s own initiative. (5) Any order, determination or finding made, or ruling given, by the court under this section is binding on the trial Judge in the proceedings unless, in the opinion of the trial Judge, it would not be in the interests of justice for the order, determination, finding or ruling to be binding. (6) Except with the leave of the court, a party to proceedings may not raise a matter referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (e) at trial if a pre-trial hearing was held in the proceedings and the matter was not raised at the pre-trial hearing. (7) Leave is not to be granted under subsection (6) unless the court is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to refuse leave to raise the matter concerned. COMMENTARY ON REPEALED SECTION 139 Section 192A of Evidence Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 139.10]

[2-s 139.10] Section 192A of Evidence Act Section 139(3)(e) of this Act refers to s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995. Under s 192A the court may, if it considers it to be appropriate to do so, give advanced rulings or make advanced findings in relation to certain questions.

[2-s 140] Pre-trial conferences 140 (1) At the first mention of proceedings in the court before which the trial is proposed to be heard or at any other time, the court may order that a pre-trial conference is to be held so long as the time appointed for any such conference occurs after the indictment has been presented or filed. (2) The court may order the holding of a pre-trial conference under this section on application of any party or on the court’s own initiative. (3) The court may make such an order only if the accused person will be represented by an Australian legal practitioner at the pre-trial conference. (4) The purpose of the pre-trial conference is to determine whether the accused person and the prosecutor are able to reach agreement regarding the evidence to be admitted at the trial. (5) The following persons must be present during the pre-trial conference: (a) the prosecutor, (b) the Australian legal practitioner representing the accused person. (6) If the accused person has been charged jointly with any other person with the offence concerned, a joint pre-trial conference may be held in respect of two or more co-accused, but only with the consent of the prosecution and each of the co-accused concerned. (7) A requirement under this section that a person be present for the purposes of a pre-trial conference is taken to be satisfied if the person is present or available by way of an audio visual link or telephone. (8) Within 7 days after the holding of a pre-trial conference:

147

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 127 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:33 bwpageid:: 147:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 140

[2-s 140]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 140

(a) the prosecutor and the Australian legal practitioner who represented the accused person at the pre-trial conference must complete a pre-trial conference form, and (b) the prosecutor must file the pre-trial conference form with the court. (9) The pre-trial conference form: (a) is to indicate the areas of agreement and disagreement between the accused person and the prosecutor regarding the evidence to be admitted at the trial, and (b) is to be signed by the prosecutor and the Australian legal practitioner representing the accused person. (10) Except with the leave of the court, a party to proceedings may not object to the admission of any evidence at trial if the pre-trial conference form indicates that the parties have agreed that the evidence is not in dispute. (11) Leave is not to be granted under subsection (10) unless the court is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to refuse leave.

[2-s 141] Mandatory pre-trial disclosure 141 (1) After the indictment is presented or filed in proceedings, the following pre-trial disclosure is required: (a) the prosecutor is to give notice of the prosecution case to the accused person in accordance with section 142, (b) the accused person is to give notice of the defence response to the prosecution’s notice in accordance with section 143, (c) the prosecution is to give notice of the prosecution response to the defence response in accordance with section 144. (2) Pre-trial disclosure required by this section is to take place before the date set for the trial in the proceedings and in accordance with a timetable determined by the court. Note. Practice notes issued by the court will guide determinations of the timetable for pre-trial disclosures and related matters.

(3) The court may vary any such timetable if it considers that it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. (4) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the timetable for pre-trial disclosure. [s 141 subst Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[5], opn 1 Sep 2013]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 141 Mandatory pre-trial disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 141.5]

[2-s 141.5] Mandatory pre-trial disclosure In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said with respect to new ss 141, 142 and 143 (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [5] of schedule 1 replaces sections 141, 142 and 143 with new provisions containing the mandatory disclosure requirements and the new procedures for both the prosecution and the defence. Subsection (1) of the amended section 141 sets out the sequence of disclosure. The prosecution is first required to provide a notice of the prosecution case to the accused person, and in response the accused must provide a notice of defence response to the prosecution. The prosecution must then provide its notice of response to the defence response. Section 149 of the current Act remains unchanged. It makes it clear that all notices given under the division

148

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 128 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 148:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 141.5]

on behalf of the accused person are taken to be with their authority, and all notices must be filed with the court. This is an important requirement that remains in the division, as the intent of the provisions is to put the parties and the court in the best position to understand the issues to be debated at trial. Subsection (2) of the amended section 141 confirms that disclosure must take place before the date set for trial and in accordance with a timetable determined by the court. In practice, the relevant timetable is set out in court practice notes. It is intended that this practice continue, with a period out from trial being nominated. These time frames have been set because it is anticipated that trial counsel for the prosecution and the defence will have been briefed by that stage, and will be able to undertake the tasks of drafting and settling the notices, as well as identifying and hopefully resolving issues in dispute between the parties. Subsection (3) of the amended section 141 allows the court to vary the timetable where it is in the interests of justice to do so. Subsection (4) of the amended section 141 allows regulations to be made providing for the timetable for service. Subsection (1) of the amended section 142 sets out what is required in the prosecution’s notice. It includes the material that is currently required to be served under both the mandatory and court-ordered discretionary provisions. It has been expanded to reflect the extended coverage of mandatory defence disclosure, for example, in now requiring the prosecution to include a copy of any information that is adverse to the credit or the credibility of the accused. Subsection (2) of the amended section 142 allows for regulations to provide for the form and content of the statement of facts required to be included in the prosecution’s notice. The statement of facts is a summary of the prosecution allegations and evidence. Subsection (3) provides a definition of the term “law enforcement officer” used in subsection 1(i). This amendment is required as the duty of disclosure found in section 15A of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act was recently amended to apply to officers of the Police Integrity Commission, New South Wales Crime Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, as well as police officers, all described in that Act as law enforcement officers. The definition in subsection 3 matches the definition of “law enforcement officer” now found in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The amended section 143 sets out the mandatory and discretionary disclosure requirements for the defence. Subsection 1 requires the notice of the defence response to include the current mandatory material, such as the name of the accused’s legal representative and a notice in relation to any evidence that can be agreed. However, it also requires disclosure of the nature of the accused’s defence, including particular defences to be relied on, the facts, matters or circumstances on which the prosecution intends to rely to prove guilt — as indicated in the prosecution’s notice — and with which the accused intends to take issue, and points of law that the accused intends to raise. These additional mandatory requirements draw on what the court can currently require the defence to disclose on a discretionary basis in the existing version of section 143. Drawing on the language of the existing provisions may assist practitioners in understanding and complying with the new defence requirements. As I have already set out, this information is not required to be disclosed until after the prosecution notice has been served, and a number of weeks out from trial. This will likely be some months after committal from the Local Court, by which time it is expected that the prosecution will have served all of the evidence it seeks to rely on at trial and disclosed all material that would reasonably be regarded as relevant to the defence case. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the defence to disclose the matters set out in the amended section 143. It will enable the parties to focus on the real issues that will be in dispute at trial, with the result that trials are likely to be shorter in length and witnesses will not be called unnecessarily to give evidence from the witness box that can be reduced to writing or tendered in a statement.

149

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 129 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 149:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 141

[2-s 141.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 141

Subsection (2) of the amended section 143 sets out what material the court can order the defence to disclose in the same notice, in addition to the mandatory requirements. It includes the same material provided for in the current discretionary defence disclosure provisions, excluding that material captured by the three additional mandatory requirements in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of proposed section 143(1). Keeping certain elements of defence disclosure discretionary is suited to the practicalities of the conduct of trials in New South Wales’s higher courts, which can range from simple single-issue cases with one accused, to highly complex cases involving many months of evidence and with multiple accused. Any mandatory model must reflect this reality and be capable of adapting to the circumstances of each case. The new discretionary defence provisions in the bill will allow the courts to tailor requirements on a case-by-case basis to avoid unnecessarily causing delays in the management of trials. Proposed subsection (2)(b), for example, requires the defence to confirm whether the prosecution is required to call witnesses to corroborate any surveillance on which it is intended to rely. Surveillance evidence within the meaning of the subsection is intended to have a broad meaning. It can include traditional surveillance evidence, such as physical observations of suspects recorded in logs by the police, as well as that obtained under warrant, such as evidence resulting from the placing of a listening device in a particular location. This evidence may not be relevant in some cases, and allowing the court to make an order means that the judge can tailor its terms to fit the type of evidence in question.

[2-s 142] Prosecution’s notice 142 (1) For the purposes of section 141(1)(a), the prosecution’s notice is to contain the following: (a) a copy of the indictment, (b) a statement of facts, (c) a copy of a statement of each witness whose evidence the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (c1) in accordance with Division 3 of Part 4B of Chapter 6, a copy of any recorded statement that the prosecutor intends to adduce at the trial, (c2) if the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial the transcript of an audio or a visual recording, a copy of that transcript, Note. This paragraph does not require the prosecution’s notice to contain copies of transcripts of recorded statements (within the meaning of section 289D) unless the prosecutor proposes to adduce such transcripts at the trial.

(d) a copy of each document, evidence of the contents of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (e) if the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence at the trial in the form of a summary, a copy of the summary or, where the summary has not yet been prepared, an outline of the summary, (f) a copy of any exhibit that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (g) a copy of any chart or explanatory material that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (h) if any expert witness is proposed to be called at the trial by the prosecutor, a copy of each report by the witness that is relevant to the case, (i) a copy of any information, document or other thing provided by law enforcement officers to the prosecutor, or otherwise in the possession of the

150

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 130 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 150:: bwservice::0::

(j)

(k) (l) (m)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 142.5]

prosecutor, that would reasonably be regarded as relevant to the prosecution case or the defence case, and that has not otherwise been disclosed to the accused person, a list identifying: (i) any information, document or other thing of which the prosecutor is aware and that would reasonably be regarded as being of relevance to the case but that is not in the prosecutor’s possession and is not in the accused person’s possession, and (ii) the place at which the prosecutor believes the information, document or other thing is situated, a copy of any information in the possession of the prosecutor that is relevant to the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness, a copy of any information, document or other thing in the possession of the prosecutor that would reasonably be regarded as adverse to the credit or credibility of the accused person, a list identifying the statements of those witnesses who are proposed to be called at the trial by the prosecutor.

[subs (1) am Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[8], opn 1 June 2015; Act 47 of 2018 Sch 1[1], opn 2 Nov 2018]

(2) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the form and content of a statement of facts for the purposes of this section. (3) In this section, law enforcement officer means a police officer, or an officer of one of the following agencies: (a) the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, (b) the New South Wales Crime Commission, (c) the Independent Commission Against Corruption. [subs (3) am Act 61 of 2016 Sch 6.11[3], opn 1 July 2017] [s 142 subst Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[5], opn 1 Sep 2013]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 142 Prosecution general law duty of disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 142.5]

[2-s 142.5] Prosecution general law duty of disclosure Quite apart from the provisions in this Division, the prosecution is under a continuing obligation to make full disclosure to the accused, in a timely manner, of all material known to the prosecutor which can be seen, on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution: (a) to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case; (b) to raise or possibly raise a new issue, whose existence is not apparent from the evidence, the prosecution proposes to use; and/or (c) to hold out a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of providing a lead to evidence which goes to either of the previous two situations: para 18 of the Prosecution Guidelines of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, at [28-25,090]; cf Grey v R (2001) 184 ALR 593; 75 ALJR 1708; [2001] HCA 65; BC200107041; Bailey v Dept of Land and Water Conservation (2009) 74 NSWLR 333; [2009] NSWCA 100; BC200903503. It was held in Grey at [23] that there was no reason why the defence should have to fossick for documents to which they were entitled. In a joint judgment in Mallard v R (2005) 224 CLR 125 at 133; 222 ALR 236; [2005] HCA 68; BC200509688, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ confirmed that Grey stands as authority for the proposition that the prosecution must at common law disclose all relevant evidence to an accused, and that a failure to do so may, in some circumstances, require the quashing of a verdict of guilty.

151

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 131 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 151:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 142

[2-s 142.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 142

The extent of the Crown’s duty of disclosure, and the consequences of a breach of that duty, were considered in R v Reardon (No 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; 146 A Crim R 475; [2004] NSWCCA 197; BC200403886 at [95], where Simpson J suggested there might be a distinction between the duty to provide copies of documents as part of the prosecution brief and a duty to disclose the existence of documents and to make them available for inspection. In R v Spiteri (2004) 61 NSWLR 369; [2004] NSWCCA 321; BC200406903; 11(11) Crim LN [1792] the views expressed in R v Reardon, above, were further examined and it was held that the prosecution was not required to disclose evidence as to the physical capacity of the accused. Judge Simpson stated at [25] that: The Crown cannot be expected to disclose material in its possession which might assist a defence of which it has no notice, and cannot be expected to foresee. In that case it was relevant that the accused declined to be interviewed by police and did not expressly reveal what his defence might be. In R v Livingstone (2004) 150 A Crim R 117; [2004] NSWCCA 407; BC200408071 the duty of the prosecution to disclose documents was again considered and Simpson J stated that a ground in respect of the failure of the prosecution to disclose documents raised four questions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

ought the documents to have been disclosed; what is involved in disclosure; whether documents were adequately disclosed and; whether non-disclosure resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

In that case, although the interview between police and another person should have been disclosed, the failure did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

[2-s 143] Defence response 143 (1) For the purposes of section 141(1)(b), the notice of the defence response is to contain the following: (a) the name of any Australian legal practitioner proposed to appear on behalf of the accused person at the trial, (b) the nature of the accused person’s defence, including particular defences to be relied on, (c) the facts, matters or circumstances on which the prosecution intends to rely to prove guilt (as indicated in the prosecution’s notice under section 142) and with which the accused person intends to take issue, (d) points of law which the accused person intends to raise, (e) notice of any consent that the accused person proposes to give at the trial under section 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to each of the following: (i) a statement of a witness that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (ii) a summary of evidence that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial, (f) a statement as to whether or not the accused person intends to give any notice under section 150 (Notice of alibi) or, if the accused person has already given such a notice, a statement that the notice has been given, (g) a statement as to whether or not the accused person intends to give any notice under section 151 (Notice of intention to adduce evidence of substantial mental impairment).

152

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 132 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 152:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 144]

(h) if any expert witness is proposed to be called at the trial by the accused person, a copy of each report by that witness that is relevant to the case and on which the accused person intends to rely, (i) notice as to whether the accused person proposes to raise any issue with respect to the continuity of custody of any proposed exhibit disclosed by the prosecutor, (j) notice of any significant issue that the accused person proposes to raise regarding the form of the indictment, severability of the charges or separate trials for the charges, (k) if the prosecutor disclosed an intention to adduce at the trial any audio or visual recording or the transcript of any audio or visual recording: (i) any request that the accused person has that the recording or transcript be edited (other than in circumstances to which subsection (2)(d) relates), and (ii) particulars sufficient to clearly identify the edits that the accused person requests. [subs (1) am Act 47 of 2018 Sch 1[2], opn 2 Nov 2018]

(2) The notice of the defence response is also to contain such of the following matters (if any) as the court orders: (a) [repealed] (b) if the prosecutor disclosed an intention to adduce evidence at the trial that has been obtained by means of surveillance, notice as to whether the accused person proposes to require the prosecutor to call any witnesses to corroborate that evidence and, if so, which witnesses will be required, (c) [repealed] (d) if the prosecutor disclosed an intention to tender at the trial any transcript, notice as to whether the accused person accepts the transcript as accurate and, if not, in what respect the transcript is disputed, (e) notice as to whether the accused person proposes to dispute the authenticity or accuracy of any proposed documentary evidence or other exhibit disclosed by the prosecutor, (f) [repealed] (g) notice of any consent the accused person proposes to give under section 184 of the Evidence Act 1995. [subs (2) am Act 47 of 2018 Sch 1[3], opn 2 Nov 2018] [s 143 subst Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[5], opn 1 Sep 2013]

[2-s 144] Prosecution response to defence response 144 For the purposes of section 141(1)(c), the notice of the prosecution response to the defence response is to contain the following: (a) if the accused person has disclosed an intention to adduce expert evidence at the trial, notice as to whether the prosecutor disputes any of the expert evidence and, if so, in what respect, (b) if the accused person has disclosed an intention to tender any exhibit at the trial, notice as to whether the prosecutor proposes to raise any issue with respect to the continuity of custody of the exhibit,

153

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 133 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:34 bwpageid:: 153:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 144

[2-s 144]

s 144

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(c) if the accused person has disclosed an intention to tender any documentary evidence or other exhibit at the trial, notice as to whether the prosecutor proposes to dispute the accuracy or admissibility of the documentary evidence or other exhibit, (d) notice as to whether the prosecutor proposes to dispute the admissibility of any other proposed evidence disclosed by the accused person, and the basis for the objection, (d1) if the accused person has requested any editing of any audio or visual recording, or the transcript of any audio or visual recording, that the prosecutor intends to adduce at the trial, notice as to: (i) whether the prosecutor disputes any of the requested editing, and (ii) which requested edits are disputed, if any, (e) a copy of any information, document or other thing in the possession of the prosecutor, not already disclosed to the accused person, that might reasonably be expected to assist the case for the defence, (f) a copy of any information, document or other thing that has not already been disclosed to the accused person and that is required to be contained in the notice of the case for the prosecution. [s 144 am Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[6], opn 1 Sep 2013; Act 47 of 2018 Sch 1[4], opn 2 Nov 2018]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 144 Prosecution response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 144.5]

[2-s 144.5] Prosecution response In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [6] of schedule 1 amends section 144 to remove a reference to “court-ordered pre-trial disclosure”. Currently a prosecution response is required only to a court-ordered defence response, and not to a mandatory defence response. A prosecution response will now be required in all cases where the accused person has given a defence response under the amended section 143, irrespective of whether that response includes mandatory or discretionary material.

[2-s 145] Dispensing with formal proof 145 (1) If a fact, matter or circumstance was alleged in a notice required to be given to the accused person by the prosecutor in accordance with this Division and the accused person was required to give a defence response under section 143 but did not disclose in the response an intention to dispute or require proof of the fact, matter or circumstance, the court may order that: (a) a document asserting the alleged fact, matter or circumstance may be admitted at the trial as evidence of the fact, matter or circumstance, and (b) evidence may not, without the leave of the court, be adduced to contradict or qualify the alleged fact, matter or circumstance. (2) If evidence was disclosed by the prosecution to the accused person in accordance with this Division and the accused person was required to give a defence response under section 143 but did not include notice in that response under section 143(1)(c) in relation

154

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 134 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:35 bwpageid:: 154:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 145.10]

to that evidence, the court may, by order, dispense with the application of any one or more of the following provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to the adducing of the evidence at trial: (a) Division 3, 4 or 5 of Part 2.1, (b) Part 2.2 or 2.3, (c) Parts 3.2–3.8. [subs (2) am Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[7], opn 1 Sep 2013]

(3) The court may, on the application of a party, direct that the party may adduce evidence of 2 or more witnesses in the form of a summary if the court is satisfied that: (a) the summary is not misleading or confusing, and (b) admission of the summary instead of evidence from the witnesses will not result in unfair prejudice to any party to the proceedings. (4) The court may, in a direction under subsection (3), require that one or more of the witnesses whose evidence is to be adduced in the form of a summary are to be available for cross-examination. (5) The opinion rule (within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995) does not apply to evidence adduced in accordance with a direction under subsection (3). (6) The provisions of this section are in addition to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995, in particular, section 190. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 145 Scope of amended section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 145.5] [2-s 145.10]

[2-s 145.5] Scope of amended section In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General referred to amendments to s 145 (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [7] of schedule 1 amends subsection (2) of section 145 so that it now refers to the new mandatory defence requirement to set out the prosecution facts, matters or circumstances with which the accused takes issue. This is instead of the current discretionary requirement to give notice as to whether the accused proposes to dispute the admissibility of any evidence, as that requirement will now be captured by the requirement in the bill to set out the prosecution facts, matters or circumstances with which the accused takes issue. If the accused fails to identify any issue with prosecution evidence of a fact, matter or circumstance, then the prosecution may be permitted by the court to dispense with formal proof in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of section 145. For example, the prosecution may be allowed to ask leading questions of a prosecution witness where the accused has failed to take issue with that evidence in the defence response, or the prosecution may be allowed to adduce evidence impugning the credibility of a defence witness, which would otherwise be excluded by the Evidence Act, where the accused has failed to take issue with that evidence. [2-s 145.10] Evidence Act Section 145(5) of this Act refers to “the opinion rule (within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995)”. The opinion rule is that evidence of an opinion is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact about the existence of which the opinion was expressed, see at [3-s 76]. Section 145(6) of this Act refers to s 190 of the Evidence Act, see at [3-s 190]. Section 190 permits the court, but only if the parties consent, to dispense with the application of any one or more of the provisions of the Evidence Act contained in: (a) Divisions 3, 4 or 5 or Part 2.1, or

155

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 135 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:35 bwpageid:: 155:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 145

[2-s 145.10]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 145

(b) Part 2.2 or 2.3, or (c) Parts 3.2–3.8.

[2-s 146] Sanctions for non-compliance with pre-trial disclosure requirements 146 (1) Exclusion of evidence not disclosed The court may refuse to admit evidence in proceedings that is sought to be adduced by a party who failed to disclose the evidence to the other party in accordance with requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division. (2) Exclusion of expert evidence where report not provided The court may refuse to admit evidence from an expert witness in proceedings that is sought to be adduced by a party if the party failed to give the other party a copy of a report by the expert witness in accordance with requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division. (3) Adjournment The court may grant an adjournment to a party if the other party seeks to adduce evidence in the proceedings that the other party failed to disclose in accordance with requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division and that would prejudice the case of the party seeking the adjournment. (4) Application of sanctions Without limiting the regulations that may be made under subsection (5), the powers of the court may not be exercised under this section to prevent an accused person adducing evidence unless the prosecutor has complied with the requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed on the prosecution by or under this Division. (5) Regulations The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the exercise of the powers of a court under this section (including the circumstances in which the powers may not be exercised). COMMENTARY ON SECTION 146 Non-compliance with pre-trial disclosure requirements . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 146.5]

[2-s 146.5] Non-compliance with pre-trial disclosure requirements In the second reading speech for the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Bill 2009 the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Attorney General, said (Legislative Council, Hansard, 1 December 2009): Clause 146 enables the court to refuse to admit evidence that was not disclosed in accordance with the pre-trial disclosure requirements of the proposed Division and to exclude expert evidence where a copy of the report of the evidence was not provided to the other party in accordance with those requirements. The court may also grant an adjournment if a party to proceedings seeks to adduce evidence not previously disclosed that would prejudice the case of the other party to the proceedings. The court cannot use its powers under the proposed section to prevent the accused person adducing evidence unless the prosecutor has complied with the pre-trial disclosure requirements. Section 146 was not affected by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10.

156

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 136 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:35 bwpageid:: 156:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 146A.5]

[2-s 146A] Drawing of inferences in certain circumstances 146A (1) This section applies if: (a) the accused person fails to comply with the requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division on the accused person, or (b) the accused person is required to give a notice under section 150 (Notice of alibi) and fails to do so. (2) If this section applies: (a) the court, or any other party with the leave of the court, may make such comment at the trial as appears proper, and (b) the court or jury may then draw such unfavourable inferences as appear proper. (3) A person must not be found guilty of an offence solely on an inference drawn under this section. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply unless the prosecutor has complied with the requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division on the prosecution. (5) This section does not limit the operation of section 146. [s 146A insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[8], opn 1 Sep 2013]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 146A Operation of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 146A.5]

[2-s 146A.5] Operation of section In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [8] of schedule 1 introduces a new section 146A into the Criminal Procedure Act that sets out the circumstances in which comment can be made and an unfavourable inference drawn against an accused at trial. Proposed subsection (1)(a) confirms that the section will only apply when the accused person has failed to comply with a disclosure requirement imposed on them by the division. This may happen where the accused simply fails to serve a response to the prosecution case. Alternatively, the accused may serve a response, but then seek to rely at trial on a defence that was not mentioned in that response, or take issue with a prosecution fact, matter or circumstance that was not addressed in the response. Proposed subsection (1)(b) specifically states that the new section 146A also applies if the accused fails to serve a notice of alibi, as required by section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 150 requires a notice to be served in the period after committal and 42 days before the trial is listed for hearing. This means it should have been served before the defence response is due. The response itself requires the accused to state whether they intend to serve an alibi notice, or to state that a notice has already been given under section 150. These provisions do not alter the existing time frame in section 150, or the limitations that can be placed on the adducing of alibi evidence if the notice is not served in time. If the new section 146A applies, then two steps are set out under proposed subsection (2). First, the court, or any other party with the leave of the court, may make such comment at the trial as appears proper. “Any other party” is likely to mean prosecution counsel, who may wish to bring the accused’s failure to raise relevant matters in their response to the prosecution case to the attention of the jury during his or her closing. It could also refer to counsel for a co-accused. The party seeking to make comment will not be allowed to invite the jury to draw an unfavourable inference. They are only permitted to highlight the failures of the accused, and will need to seek the judge’s permission in the absence of the jury before doing so. Only the trial judge will be permitted to comment to the jury about the availability of the unfavourable

157

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 137 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:35 bwpageid:: 157:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 146A

[2-s 146A.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 146A

inference. It is intended that the Judicial Commission’s Bench Book Committee will prepare material for judges giving guidance on how to make such comment to the jury. Secondly, once comment has been made, the court — if it is sitting as a judge-alone trial without a jury — or the jury may then draw such unfavourable inferences as appear proper. In considering what inferences appear proper, the court or the jury will take into account the circumstances of the particular case in which they are being asked to give a verdict. New subsection (3) of the new section 146A states that an accused cannot be found guilty solely on an inference drawn under the section. This is an important safeguard for accused persons, as it ensures that there must be other evidence of the accused’s guilt, besides the unfavourable inference, before the jury can be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and return a guilty verdict. ... A further safeguard for defendants is found in new subsection (4), which confirms that comment cannot be made, or an unfavourable inference drawn, if the prosecution has not complied with its disclosure requirements under the Act. This is only fair. If the prosecution has not outlined its case properly to the accused in the notice of its case then it would not be fair to allow an inference to be drawn. An example of such a failure would be if the notice of the prosecution case did not include information that is relevant to the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness. However, it should be pointed out that the prosecution can only include in its notice the information and material that it has in its possession at the time the notice is served. If, for example, any information that is relevant to the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness came into the possession of the prosecution after it had given its notice to the accused, then the prosecution will not have failed to comply with its disclosure requirements under the division if it gives the information to the accused as soon as practicable after receiving it. In this circumstance, the prosecution would be complying with its ongoing duty of disclosure under section 147 of the Act. Also, existing provisions make it clear that the prosecution or the defence are not required to include in a notice material that has been previously served. It is sufficient, for example, to provide a list of statements held. Neither is either party required to include in a notice a copy of material that is impracticable to copy, as long as details are provided of where and when it can be inspected. These amendments, read in conjunction with the existing division, take a practical approach to the exchange of notices. They have been drafted with reference to the existing practices of prosecution and defence agencies in mind, and reflect the operational demands of the trials seen day in, day out in our courts. It is not the intention of the bill to clutter the courts with technical disputes. It is not expected that these notices will be lacking if, say, a line of a statement is lost. These notices are about setting out the respective parties’ cases and what is in dispute. It does not remove the professional responsibility placed on a lawyer to make sensible inquiries for a full or clearer copy of a statement. New subsection (5) of section 146A confirms that new section 146A does not affect the operation of section 146, which sets out existing sanctions for failures to comply with disclosure requirements. By way of example, section 146 may operate to prevent a party from adducing evidence at trial that the party failed to disclose to the other party in accordance with the Act’s disclosure requirements. It also allows the other party to apply for an adjournment of the trial listing date in order to consider that evidence. Those sanctions will remain in the current form of section 146 and will continue to apply equally to the defence and the prosecution.

158

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 138 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:36 bwpageid:: 158:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 147.5]

[2-s 147] Disclosure requirements are ongoing 147 (1) The obligation to comply with the requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division continues until any of the following happens: (a) the accused person is convicted or acquitted of the charges in the indictment, (b) the prosecution is terminated. (2) Accordingly, if any information, document or other thing is obtained or anything else occurs after pre-trial disclosure is made by a party to the proceedings, that would have affected that pre-trial disclosure had the information, document or thing been obtained or the thing occurred before pre-trial disclosure was made, the information, document, thing or occurrence is to be disclosed to the other party to the proceedings as soon as practicable. (3) An accused person may, with the leave of the court, amend the notice of the defence response given under section 143 if any information, document or other thing is obtained from the prosecution after the notice of the defence response was given that would affect the contents of that notice. [subs (3) insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[9], opn 1 Sep 2013]

(4) The accused person must give the amended notice of the defence response to the prosecutor. [subs (4) insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[9], opn 1 Sep 2013]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 147 Ongoing disclosure obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 147.5]

[2-s 147.5] Ongoing disclosure obligations In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [9] of schedule 1 amends section 147 of the Act to include a new subsection (3), which allows the accused, with the court’s leave, to amend the defence response given under the new section 143 if new material is later obtained from the prosecution that would affect the content of the defence response. As I have said already, if as a result of its ongoing duty of disclosure the prosecution serves new material after it has given its notice to the accused, then that will not be a failure under subsection (4) of new section 146A. However, it is only fair in such circumstances to allow the defence an opportunity to seek leave to amend its notice of response where the material affects its contents. Section 147 is also amended with new subsection (4), which confirms that any amended response must be given to the prosecution. This reinforces subsection (5) of section 149, which states that a copy of all notices required to be given by a party under the Act’s disclosure requirements must also be filed with the court. Such a requirement is necessary to the effective management of cases, as it allows the court to be kept informed of the parties’ compliance — or lack of — with the Act’s provisions, and for any remedial action to be taken by the court. Item [12] of schedule 1 amends section 149 to include a reference to amended notices under the provisions. In keeping with the theme of the giving and filing of notices, the Trial Efficiency Working Group considered during its discussions the issue of the cross service of defence responses between co-accused in multi-defendant cases. The group’s report concluded that court practice notes would be the more effective way of regulating such conduct, and that practice notes should be developed in both the District Court and Supreme Court. The practice notes should give guidance as to how cross service will take place and allow for directions to be made to

159

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 139 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:36 bwpageid:: 159:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 147

[2-s 147.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 147

reflect the particular circumstances of each case.

[2-s 148] Court may waive requirements 148 (1) A court may, by order, waive any of the pre-trial disclosure requirements that apply under this Division, but only if the court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the administration of justice to do so. [subs (1) am Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[10], opn 1 Sep 2013]

(2) The court may make such an order on its own initiative or on the application of the prosecutor or the accused person. (3) An order may be made subject to such conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit. (4) The court is to take into account whether the accused person is represented by an Australian legal practitioner when considering whether to make an order under this section. [subs (4) insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[11], opn 1 Sep 2013]

(5) The court is to give reasons for the making of an order under this section. [subs (5) insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[11], opn 1 Sep 2013]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 148 Waiver of requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 148.5]

[2-s 148.5] Waiver of requirements In the second reading speech for the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Bill 2013 and the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Bill (introduced as cognate bills) the Attorney General said (Legislative Assembly, Hansard, 13 March 2013): Item [10] of schedule 1 amends section 148 of the Act, which allows the court to waive any of the pre-trial disclosure requirements. The court can make an order on its own initiative, or it can be sought by the prosecution or defence. As I have discussed previously, there are mandatory as well as discretionary elements to defence disclosure requirements, which necessarily allow for flexibility in applying the provisions to the circumstances of each case. However, in order to reflect that compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements should always be the starting point, the bill amends the existing section 148(1) by introducing an “interests of the administration of justice” test. This test must be applied to any possibility of waiver. Furthermore, the court will also be required to give its reasons when it makes such an order, pursuant to section 148(5). New subsection (4) requires the court to take into account whether the accused is legally represented when considering a waiver order. Currently, the court can only order further defence disclosure where the accused is represented. That requirement is now removed from the provisions. This will ensure that the Act’s provisions are not automatically avoided by an unrepresented defendant, as instead it will be a factor to be taken into account when the court considers waiving the provisions. It will also ensure that there is no impediment to the accused engaging and instructing counsel at the earliest opportunity.

[2-s 149] Requirements as to notices 149 (1) A notice under this Division is to be in writing. (2) Any notice purporting to be given under this Division on behalf of the accused person by his or her Australian legal practitioner is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have been given with the authority of the accused person.

160

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 140 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:36 bwpageid:: 160:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 149B]

(3) A notice under this Division that is required to be given to a prosecutor may be given to the prosecutor in the following manner, or as otherwise directed by the court: (a) by delivering it to the prosecutor, (b) by leaving it at the office of the prosecutor, (c) by sending it by post or facsimile to the prosecutor at the office of the prosecutor, (d) by sending it by electronic mail to the prosecutor, but only if the prosecutor has agreed to notice being given in that manner. (4) A notice under this Division that is required to be given to an accused person may be given to the accused person in the following manner, or as otherwise directed by the court: (a) by delivering it to the accused person, (b) by leaving it at the office of the Australian legal practitioner representing the accused person, (c) by sending it by post or facsimile to the Australian legal practitioner representing the accused person at the office of the Australian legal practitioner, (d) by sending it by electronic mail to the Australian legal practitioner, but only if the Australian legal practitioner has agreed to notice being given in that manner. (5) A party required to give a notice under this Division must file a copy of the notice with the court as soon as practicable after giving it, or as otherwise required by the court. (6) A reference in this section to a notice includes a reference to an amended notice. [subs (6) insrt Act 10 of 2013 Sch 1[12], opn 1 Sep 2013]

[2-s 149A] Copies of exhibits and other things not to be provided if impracticable 149A (1) A copy of a proposed exhibit, document or thing is not required to be included in a notice under this Division if it is impossible or impractical to provide a copy. (2) However, the party required to give the notice: (a) is to specify in the notice a reasonable time and place at which the proposed exhibit, document or thing may be inspected, and (b) is to allow the other party to the proceedings a reasonable opportunity to inspect the proposed exhibit, document or thing referred to in the notice.

[2-s 149B] Personal details not to be provided 149B (1) The prosecutor is not to disclose in any notice under this Division the address or telephone number of any witness proposed to be called by the prosecutor, or of any other living person, unless: (a) the address or telephone number is a materially relevant part of the evidence, or (b) the court makes an order permitting the disclosure. (2) An application for such an order may be made by the accused person or the prosecutor. (3) The court must not make such an order unless satisfied that the disclosure is not likely to present a reasonably ascertainable risk to the welfare or protection of any person or that the interests of justice (including the accused person’s right to prepare properly for the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution) outweigh any such risk.

161

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 141 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:36 bwpageid:: 161:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 149B

[2-s 149B]

s 149B

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

(4) This section does not prevent the disclosure of an address if the disclosure does not identify it as a particular person’s address, or it could not reasonably be inferred from the matters disclosed that it is a particular person’s address. (5) An address or telephone number that must not be disclosed may, without reference to the person who made the statement being disclosed, be deleted from that statement, or rendered illegible, before the statement is given to the accused person.

[2-s 149C] Requirements as to statements of witnesses 149C (1) A statement of a witness that is included in a notice under this Division may be in the form of questions and answers. (2) If a notice includes a statement that is, wholly or in part, in a language other than English, there must be annexed to it a document purporting to contain a translation of the statement, or so much of it as is not in the English language, into the English language.

[2-s 149D] Exemption for matters previously disclosed 149D (1) The prosecutor is not required to include in a notice under this Division anything that has already been included in a brief of evidence in relation to the matter served on the accused person in accordance with this or any other Act or that has otherwise been provided or disclosed to the accused person. (2) The accused person is not required to include in a notice under this Division anything that has already been provided or disclosed to the prosecutor. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 149D Matters previously disclosed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 149D.5]

[2-s 149D.5] Matters previously disclosed In the second reading speech for the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Bill 2009 the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Attorney General, said (Legislative Council, Hansard, 1 December 2009): Clause 149D provides that, with specified exceptions, the prosecutor is not required to disclose anything in a notice under the proposed Division if it has already been included in the brief of evidence or otherwise provided or disclosed to the accused person. Similarly, the accused person is not required to include in a notice anything that has already been provided to the prosecutor. Section 149D was not affected by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10.

[2-s 149E] Court powers to ensure efficient management and conduct of trial 149E (1) On or after the commencement of the trial in proceedings, the court may make such orders, determinations or findings, or give such directions or rulings, as it thinks appropriate for the efficient management and conduct of the trial. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may order that any of the parties to the proceedings disclose any matter that was, or could have been, required to be disclosed under this Division before the commencement of the trial.

162

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 142 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:36 bwpageid:: 162:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 149E Court powers after commencement of trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 149F]

[2-s 149E.5]

[2-s 149E.5] Court powers after commencement of trial In the second reading speech for the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Case Management) Bill 2009 the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Attorney General, said (Legislative Council, Hansard, 1 December 2009): Clause 149E makes it clear that, on or after the commencement of the trial in proceedings, the court may make orders, determinations or findings, or give directions or rulings, for the efficient management and conduct of the trial, including ordering any of the parties to the proceedings to make disclosures that could have been required under the proposed Division before the commencement of the trial. Section 149E was not affected by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10.

[2-s 149F] Miscellaneous provisions 149F (1) A statement about any matter that is made by or on behalf of the accused person for the purposes of complying with requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division does not constitute an admission of that matter by the accused person. (2) The court may make orders to resolve any dispute between the parties to criminal proceedings about: (a) the requirements for pre-trial disclosure imposed by or under this Division, or (b) the use of anything disclosed under this Division (including restrictions on publication or further disclosure). (3) This Division does not affect the obligations or powers under Division 4 (Pre-trial disclosure — general). (4) Nothing in this Division prevents any voluntary pre-trial disclosure by the accused person to the prosecutor of any information, document or other thing that the accused person proposes to adduce in evidence in the proceedings. (5) This Division does not limit any obligation (arising otherwise than under this Division) for pre-trial disclosure that is capable of being complied with concurrently with requirements imposed by or under this Division, but this Division prevails to the extent of any inconsistency with any such obligation. Any such obligation extends to obligations imposed by the common law, the rules of court, the Uniform Rules made under Part 9.2 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and prosecution guidelines issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. [subs (5) am Act 7 of 2015 Sch 2.11[1], opn 1 July 2015]

(6) However, this Division does not affect any immunity that applies by law to the disclosure of any information, document or other thing, including, for example, legal professional or client legal privilege, public interest immunity and sexual assault communications privilege under Division 2 of Part 5 of Chapter 6. (7) Nothing in this Division limits any powers that a court has apart from this Division in relation to proceedings. (8) The provisions of this Division prevail over the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 to the extent of any inconsistency with those provisions.

163

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 143 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:37 bwpageid:: 163:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 149F

[2-s 149F.5]

s 149F

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 149F Other disclosure requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 149F.5]

[2-s 149F.5] Other disclosure requirements In the second reading speech the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Attorney General, said (Legislative Council, Hansard, 1 December 2009): Clause 149F creates a number of miscellaneous provisions, including clarification that the Act is not intended to limit any disclosure requirements currently imposed on the parties in a criminal trial by sources such as the common law, other legislation and rules of court, and the Office of the DPP’s Prosecution Guidelines. Even where the court orders disclosure under clause 141, the common law or other sources may require a higher level of disclosure than that prescribed in this legislation. It is not the intention of the Act to limit the operation of such requirements. The Act will only prevail over such requirements where it is impossible, or impracticable, to comply with both. Section 149F was not affected by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10.

DIVISION 4 — PRE-TRIAL DISCLOSURE — GENERAL [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[64], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 150] Notice of alibi 150 (1) This section applies only to trials on indictment. (2) An accused person may not, without the leave of the court, adduce evidence in support of an alibi unless, before the end of the prescribed period, he or she gives notice of particulars of the alibi to the Director of Public Prosecutions and files a copy of the notice with the court. [subs (2) am Act 57 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[6], opn 7 Dec 2007]

(3) Without limiting subsection (2), the accused person may not, without the leave of the court, call any other person to give evidence in support of an alibi unless: (a) the notice under that subsection includes the other person’s name and address or, if the other person’s name or address is not known to the accused person at the time he or she gives notice, any information in his or her possession that might be of material assistance in finding the other person, and (b) if the other person’s name or address is not included in the notice, the court is satisfied that the accused person before giving notice took, and thereafter continued to take, all reasonable steps to ensure that the other person’s name or address would be ascertained, and (c) if the other person’s name or address is not included in the notice, but the accused person subsequently discovers the other person’s name or address or receives other information that might be of material assistance in finding the other person, he or she immediately gives notice of the name, address or other information, and (d) if the accused person is notified by or on behalf of the Crown that the other person has not been traced by the name or address given by the accused person, he or she immediately gives notice of any information that might be of material assistance in finding the other person and that is then in his or her possession or, on subsequently receiving any such information, immediately gives notice of it.

164

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 144 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:37 bwpageid:: 164:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 150.1]

(4) The court may not refuse leave under this section if it appears to the court that, on the committal for trial of the accused person, he or she was not informed by the committing Magistrate of the requirements of subsections (2), (3) and (7) and, for that purpose, a statement in writing by the committing Magistrate that the accused person was informed of those requirements is evidence that the accused person was so informed. [subs (4) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[66], opn 7 July 2003]

(5) Any evidence tendered to disprove an alibi may, subject to any direction by the court, be given before or after evidence is given in support of the alibi. (6) Any notice purporting to be given under this section on behalf of the accused person by his or her Australian legal practitioner is, unless the contrary is proved, to be taken to have been given with the authority of the accused person. [subs (1) am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[7], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(7) A notice under this section must be given in writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and may be given by delivering it to the Director, by leaving it at the Director’s office or by sending it in a letter addressed to the Director at the Director’s office. (8) In this section: evidence in support of an alibi means evidence tending to show that, by reason of the presence of the accused person at a particular place or in a particular area at a particular time, the accused person was not, or was unlikely to have been, at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of its alleged commission. prescribed period means the period commencing at the time of the accused person’s committal for trial and ending 42 days before the trial is listed for hearing. [subs (8) am Act 7 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[4], opn 19 Nov 2001; Act 57 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[7], opn 7 Dec 2007] [s 150 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[26], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[65], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 150 Alibi notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crown evidence in reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prescribed period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 150.1] [2-s 150.5] [2-s 150.10]

[2-s 150.1] Alibi notice Where the accused has failed to give notice of an alibi within time, the proper course is to allow service of the notice out of time and permit the Crown an adjournment to investigate: R v Cooper (1979) 69 Cr App Rep 229. A court should be slow to refuse leave to rely upon alibi evidence unless prejudice arises such as is incapable of being addressed without significant disruption to the trial: Skondin v R [2005] NSWCCA 417; BC200510614; (2006) 13 Crim LN 136 [1980]. In that case the judge was held to be in error by presuming prejudice to the Crown without making any inquiry. The provision only applies to evidence as to the whereabouts of the accused when the crime is alleged to have been committed and not some other event in dispute: R v Lewis [1969] 2 QB 1. It only relates to an offence alleged to have been committed at a particular place: R v Hassan [1971] 1 QB 423. The accused can be cross-examined as to his failure to notify an alibi within the time prescribed and the failure can be the subject of comment: R v Lattouf (1980) 2 A Crim R 65. It is neither unusual nor irregular for the Crown to tender a notice of alibi in its case in chief: R v Heuston (1996) 90 A Crim R 213; BC9606382 at 217.

165

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 145 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:37 bwpageid:: 165:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 150

[2-s 150.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 150

[2-s 150.5] Crown evidence in reply In the light of s 150(5), it is not necessary that the Crown adduce evidence rebutting alibi in the Crown case but in some cases to call the evidence in reply may lead to such unfairness as to amount to a miscarriage of justice: Blewitt v R (1988) 80 ALR 353; 62 ALJR 503; BC8802618. There is a need for flexibility in the approach under the section and it is undesirable to determine the matter by inflexible rules of evidence including rules about splitting cases rather than by considerations of fairness and judicial discretion: R v Heuston (1996) 90 A Crim R 213; BC9606382 at 224 where it was held that directions under the section may be given at any time, for example before the close of the Crown case. It was also held in that case that where the Crown intends to adduce evidence to rebut the alibi it should disclose that evidence to the defence before the close of the Crown case. A failure by the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine the accused on a notice of alibi was held to be a breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 so that comment by the Crown prosecutor in his or her address on the failure of the accused to rely upon the alibi and the tendering of the notice in reply in such a situation was held to be unfair and brought about a miscarriage of justice: R v Marshall (NSWCCA, 15 October 1990, unreported). [2-s 150.10] Prescribed period The definition of “prescribed period” in s 150(8) was amended by the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-trial Disclosure) Act 2001 to read “the period commencing at the time of the accused person’s committal for trial and ending 21 days before the trial is listed for hearing”. This amendment applies to proceedings in which the accused person is committed for trial after the commencement of the amendment on 19 November 2001: Sch 2 cl 22 Criminal Procedure Act at [2-Sch 2]. With respect to proceedings where committal for trial occurred on or before that date, the definition of “prescribed period” as omitted by the 2001 Act remains pertinent, namely, “the period of 10 days commencing at the time of the accused person’s committal for trial”.

[2-s 151] Notice of intention to adduce evidence of substantial mental impairment 151 (1) On a trial for murder, the accused person must not, without the leave of the court, adduce evidence tending to prove a contention of substantial mental impairment unless the accused person gives notice, as prescribed by the regulations, of his or her intention to raise that contention to the Director of Public Prosecutions and files a copy of the notice with the court. [subs (1) am Act 57 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[8], opn 7 Dec 2007]

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the accused person must not, without the leave of the court, call any other person to give evidence tending to prove a contention of substantial mental impairment unless the notice under this section includes: (a) the name and address of the other person, and (b) particulars of the evidence to be given by the other person. (3) Any evidence tendered to disprove a contention of substantial mental impairment may, subject to any direction of the court, be given before or after evidence is given to prove that contention. (4) Any notice purporting to be given under this section on behalf of the accused person by his or her Australian legal practitioner is taken, unless the contrary is proved, to have been given with the authority of the accused person. [subs (1) am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[7], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(5) A notice under this section is to be given in writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and may be given by delivering it to the Director, by leaving it at the Director’s office or by sending it in a letter addressed to the Director at the Director’s office.

166

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 146 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:37 bwpageid:: 166:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 152.1]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

(6) In this section, contention of substantial mental impairment means a contention by the accused person that the accused person is not liable to be convicted of murder by virtue of section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. [s 151 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[26], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[65], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 151 Form of notice of intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence in rebuttal by the Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 151.1] [2-s 151.5]

[2-s 151.1] Form of notice of intention See cl 23 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5195] and Form 1 at [2-5940] for the prescribed form of notice of intention to adduce evidence of substantial impairment, which must be given to the DPP at least 35 days before the date on which the trial is listed to commence. [2-s 151.5] Evidence in rebuttal by the Crown The Crown may determine whether rebuttal evidence should be called in its own case or in reply unless the court orders otherwise; R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965; BC200306355; (2003) 10 Crim LN 83 [1614] where it was held that the section is permissive, but that the Crown should call its evidence in its case because it had already led evidence on the issue.

DIVISION 5 — PLEADINGS ON TRIAL [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[67], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 152] Arraignment on charge of previous conviction 152 (1) An accused person is not to be arraigned for any previous conviction charged in an indictment unless he or she is convicted of a subsequent offence charged in the indictment. (2) On the accused person’s conviction of the subsequent offence: (a) the accused person is to be arraigned, and (b) the jury is to be charged, and (c) the trial is to proceed, in relation to the previous conviction. (3) In the trial for the subsequent offence, evidence of the previous conviction may not be admitted, except in reply to evidence of character, unless the accused person is convicted of the subsequent offence. [s 152 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 152 Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 152.1]

[2-s 152.1] Scope of the section The section sets down the procedure to be adopted when dealing with offences such as that in s 115 Crimes Act, where an increased penalty is applicable to an offence committed by an accused after he or she has been convicted of a similar offence. The procedure is adopted to overcome any prejudice which might be suffered by an accused if the jury were to be aware of the previous conviction. It does not apply to summary proceedings: R v Vanecek (1954) 72 WN (NSW) 72. See [3-s 178]–[3-s 180] for proof of previous convictions.

167

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 147 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:38 bwpageid:: 167:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 152

[2-s 153]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 153

[2-s 153] Guilty plea to offence not charged 153 (1) If an accused person: (a) is arraigned on an indictment for an offence, and (b) can lawfully be convicted on the indictment of some other offence not charged in the indictment, he or she may plead “not guilty” of the offence charged in the indictment, but “guilty” of the other offence. (2) The Crown may elect to accept the plea of “guilty” or may require the trial to proceed on the charge on which the accused person is arraigned. [s 153 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 153 Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 153.1]

[2-s 153.1] Scope of the section The provisions of the section were formerly found in s 394A of the Crimes Act and cases concerning that section would apply to this section. Where there is a single count on the indictment the accused may plead “not guilty” to that charge but “guilty” to a lesser offence included in the charge or to a statutory alternative to that charge. However, the Crown is not bound to accept the plea: R v Broadbent [1964] VR 733. If the lesser plea is not accepted by the Crown it is treated as having been withdrawn and the trial continues on the count in the indictment: R v Hazeltine [1967] 2 QB 857; [1967] 2 All ER 671; [1967] 3 WLR 209; (1967) 51 Cr App Rep 351. Evidence as to the plea of guilty can be led by the Crown: R v Broadbent, above, at VR 736. If the Crown accepts the plea to the lesser offence in full discharge of the indictment, the accused is taken to have been acquitted of the count in the indictment: see Gilham v R (2007) 73 NSWLR 308; 178 A Crim R 72; [2007] NSWCCA 323; BC200710223, where the plea to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown in discharge of an indictment charging murder. Where on the indictment there are two counts, the second being an alternative to the first count, the accused can plead not guilty to the first count but guilty to the alternative count. If the Crown does not accept the plea to the alternative count, in discharge of the indictment, the plea to the alternative count stands and the accused is put in charge of the jury on the count to which the accused pleaded not guilty: R v Cole [1965] 2 QB 388; [1965] 2 All ER 29; [1965] 3 WLR 263; (1965) 49 Cr App Rep 199; Murphy v R (1988) 52 SASR 186 at 189; 37 A Crim R 405. If the accused expressly withdraws the guilty plea to the alternative count after the Crown refuses to accept the plea in discharge of the indictment then the accused is put to trial on both counts: see R v Thompson (NSWCCA, 24 June 1976, unreported), where the court commented that it would be unusual for the proffered plea not to be withdrawn to the alternative count when it was rejected by the Crown. In that case, because the guilty plea was not withdrawn, the court held that it was correct for the judge to leave only the first count to the jury. There may be cases in which it would be an abuse of process for the prosecution to charge an offender with a less serious offence than that which he in fact committed but the prosecution has a wide discretion to accept a plea of guilty to a less serious offence: R v Brown (1989) 17 NSWLR 472; 44 A Crim R 385; BC8901555. The power of the trial judge to reject a plea to a lesser offence accepted by the Crown was considered in Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501; 135 ALR 1; [1995] HCA 62; BC9600609; (1996) 3 Crim LN 9 [533] where it was held that the judge could not do so as a review of the prosecutor’s decision but only if there was an abuse of process. It was also held that the prosecutor could, with leave of the court, withdraw the acceptance of the plea where to do so would occasion no injustice to the accused. The exercise of the power to permit the Crown to withdraw the acceptance of a plea was further considered in R v BWM (1997) 91 A Crim R 260; BC9700630; (1997) 4 Crim LN

168

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 148 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:38 bwpageid:: 168:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 154.5]

12 [664], where it was held that the court should permit the withdraw where it was in the interests of justice to do so and this included the legitimate interests of the Crown and as well as the accused. The trial judge has power to permit the Crown to withdraw the indictment after a plea of guilty has been entered by the accused and to present a fresh indictment for a different, more serious offence: R v Beeby (1999) 104 A Crim R 142; [1999] NSWCCA 30; BC9900748. In R v Filimoehala (2003) 138 A Crim R 299; [2003] NSWCCA 37; BC200300828; (2003) 0 Crim LN 19 [1531], the Crown was given leave to withdraw acceptance of a plea of guilty to an offence of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm where to allow the accused to be sentenced for that offence would endanger the reputation of the system of justice. The sentence passed for the lesser offence cannot be passed on the basis that the more serious offence has been committed: R v O’Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582; (1979) 1 A Crim R 59. The court must be careful not to be prejudiced by material in the depositions relating to the more serious offence originally charged. Circumstances of aggravation may be considered by the court but not if they would give rise to a more serious offence than the one before the court: R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; 35 ALR 265; BC8100082.

[2-s 154] Plea of “not guilty” 154 If an accused person arraigned on an indictment pleads “not guilty”, the accused person is taken to have put himself or herself on the country for trial, and the court is to order a jury for trial accordingly. [s 154 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 154 Plea of not guilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plea of guilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 154.1] [2-s 154.5]

[2-s 154.1] Plea of not guilty Once the accused is placed in the charge of the jury there must be a verdict by the jury unless for some reason the jury is discharged without verdict. If there is no prima facie case the judge may direct a verdict of not guilty to be given by the jury. There is no power generally for a judge to direct an acquittal on the basis that a conviction would be unsafe or unsatisfactory: R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74; Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; 96 ALR 539; BC9002908. As to whether there is a case to go to a jury see R v Towers (1984) 14 A Crim R 12. If the accused pleads guilty during the course of the trial, the jury is to be discharged and the court finds the accused guilty: see at [2-s 157]. Where the accused refuses to plead see at [2-s 155]. A trial of an accused only commences once the accused has pleaded not guilty to an indictment so that there is no trial where an accused pleads guilty on arraignment: R v MacDonald (2000) 110 A Crim R 238; [2000] NSWCCA 1; BC200000178; (2000) 7 Crim LN 14 [1121]. [2-s 154.5] Plea of guilty The court is entitled to act on a plea of guilty when it is entered in open court by a person who is of full age and apparently of sound mind and understanding, provided the plea is entered in the exercise of a free choice in the interests of the person entering the plea and no further proof of guilt is required: Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132; 130 ALR 547; [1995] HCA 41; BC9506447, where it was pointed out the court has a discretion to reject the plea in cases which are so serious as to require a conviction by a jury before punishment should be inflicted. As to the plea of guilty to an alternative count accepted by the Crown in discharge of the indictment, see s 87 and annotations.

169

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 149 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:38 bwpageid:: 169:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 154

[2-s 154.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 154

As to the discretion of the trial judge to allow the accused to withdraw a plea of guilty see R v Lars aka Larsson (1994) 73 A Crim R 91; BC9402668 and [5-020]. As to fact finding for the purposes of sentencing after a plea of guilty, see [5-045].

[2-s 155] Refusal to plead 155 If an accused person who is arraigned stands mute, or will not answer directly to the indictment, the court may order a plea of “not guilty” to be entered on behalf of the accused person, and the plea so entered has the same effect as if the accused person had actually pleaded “not guilty”. [s 155 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 156] Plea of autrefois convict 156 (1) In any plea of autrefois convict, or of autrefois acquit, it is sufficient for the accused person to allege that he or she has been lawfully convicted or acquitted, as the case may be, of the offence charged in the indictment, without specifying the time or place of the previous conviction or acquittal. (2) The issue of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit is to be determined by the court without the presence of a jury. [s 156 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 156 Plea in bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 156.1]

[2-s 156.1] Plea in bar A plea in bar may be made where a plea of autrefois would not be available to the accused. The plea will be available where the elements of the offence charged are identical to, or included in, the elements of the offence for which an accused has been tried to conviction or acquittal: Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610; 156 ALR 684; [1998] HCA 57; BC9804554; (1998) 5 Crim LN 70 [902] where the nature of the plea is considered and it was held that the plea is not available simply because the facts upon which the charges are based are the same. In Pearce it was held that the plea was not available to an accused who was charged with both an offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm and an offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house and inflicting grievous bodily harm arising from the same facts. The plea is available where the second offence charged is an aggravated form of the offence for which the accused had been convicted: Dodd v R (1991) 56 A Crim R 451; BC9101494 where the offender was charged with supplying a prohibited drug after he had been convicted of possessing the same drug. The plea is available in summary proceedings: State Pollution Control Commission v Tallow Products Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 517 at 530–2; 65 A Crim R 509; R v McGarritty (NSWCCA, Grove J, Studdert J, Blanch J, 60556/93, 10 June 1994, unreported, BC9405228) at 13-15. The plea was not available where the defendant was acquitted of culpable driving by a jury and later prosecuted for negligent driving in the Local Court: Director of Public Prosecutions v Vella [1999] NSWSC 49; BC9900681; (1999) 6 Crim LN 25 [979]. Where a defendant pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was sentenced for certain offences and was later charged with further offences in relation to the same series of incidents, it was held that the circumstances did not give rise to a plea of autrefois convict nor did the later prosecutions constitute an abuse of process: Director of Public Prosecutions v Heagney [1999] NSWSC 303; BC9901442.

170

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 150 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:38 bwpageid:: 170:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 159]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 157] Change to guilty plea during trial 157 (1) If an accused person pleads “guilty” to an offence at any time after having been given into the charge of a jury, and the court accepts the plea, the court is to discharge the jury from giving a verdict in the matter and to find the accused person guilty of the offence. (2) The finding has effect as if it were the verdict of the jury, and the accused person is liable to punishment accordingly. [s 157 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[30], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[68], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 157 Power to withdraw plea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trial of multiple accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 157.1] [2-s 157.5]

[2-s 157.1] Power to withdraw plea Where a trial judge has accepted a plea of guilty and discharged the jury, he or she has no power to permit the plea to be withdrawn even though the judge had not actually found the accused guilty. Once the plea has been accepted the court must discharge the jury and find the accused guilty, which finding can be made expressly or by implication: R v Hura (2001) 121 A Crim R 472; [2001] NSWCCA 61; BC200101004; (2001) 8 Crim LN 28 [1278]. [2-s 157.5] Trial of multiple accused Where one of several accused being tried jointly changes his or her plea to guilty during the trial, the preferable course is to have the plea of guilty entered in the absence of the jury and to then discharge the jury with respect to all counts against that accused in accordance with s 157, and to direct the jury not to speculate as to the reasons why that accused would play no further role in the trial: Humphries v R [2015] NSWCCA 319; BC201512560; (2016) 23 Crim LN 10 [3628].

DIVISION 6 — OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO TRIALS [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[70], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 158] Transcript of statement in committal proceedings 158 A transcript of a record of a statement made by an accused person may, unless the court otherwise orders, be given in evidence at the trial of the accused person if it is proved on oath that the record is a true record of the statement made by the accused person and that the transcript is a correct transcript of the record. [s 158 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[70], opn 7 July 2003; subst Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[4], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 159] Opening address to jury by accused person 159 (1) An accused person or his or her Australian legal practitioner may address the jury immediately after the opening address of the prosecutor. [subs (1) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[72], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[9], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(2) Any such opening address is to be limited generally to an address on: (a) the matters disclosed in the prosecutor’s opening address, including those that are in dispute and those that are not in dispute, and (b) the matters to be raised by the accused person. [subs (2) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[73], opn 7 July 2003]

171

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 151 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:39 bwpageid:: 171:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 159

[2-s 159]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 159

(3) If the accused person intends to give evidence or to call any witness in support of the defence, the accused person or his or her Australian legal practitioner is entitled to open the case for the defence before calling evidence, whether or not an address has been made to the jury. [s 159 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[71], opn 7 July 2003; Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[9], opn 4 Dec 2006] Editor’s Note. Section 159 (previously s 97) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 405 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 159 Defence opening address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 159.1]

[2-s 159.1] Defence opening address The limits on a defence opening after the Crown address were considered in R v MM (2004) 145 A Crim R 148; [2004] NSWCCA 81; BC200401712 where it was held that the purpose of the opening was only to inform the jury of the issues to be raised in the trial and was not meant to be argumentative, nor should it be a forecast of the defence closing address by referring to matters such as the onus and standard of proof or directions and warnings to be given by the trial judge in respect of the evidence in the Crown case.

[2-s 160] Closing address to jury by accused person 160 (1) An accused person or his or her Australian legal practitioner may address the jury after the close of the evidence for the defence and any evidence in reply by the Crown and after the prosecutor has made a closing address to the jury or declined to make a closing address to the jury. [subs (1) am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[72], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 120 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 3[9], opn 4 Dec 2006]

(2) If, in the accused person’s closing address, relevant facts are asserted that are not supported by any evidence that is before the jury, the court may grant leave for the Crown to make a supplementary address to the jury replying to any such assertion. [s 160 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[71], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s Note. Section 160 (previously s 98) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 405 of the Crimes Act 1900.

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 160 Addresses by counsel or the accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 160.1]

[2-s 160.1] Addresses by counsel or the accused The applicability of the section to proceedings before a magistrate was considered in Mason v Lyon [2005] NSWSC 804; BC200505736; (2005) 12 Crim LN 64 [1915] where it was held that the section did not necessarily determine how submissions and addresses should be made in the Local Court. There is no practice against the Crown addressing where the accused is unrepresented and it is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge whether the Crown should be permitted to address: R v Smith (EJ) [1982] 2 NSWLR 608; R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91 at 94; 47 A Crim R 211. It has been held that it is preferable that the Crown address where the trial is long or complex: Bellino v Clair [1993] 2 Qd R 236; (1992) 63 A Crim R 346; BC9202301. Where the accused dismissed his counsel before addresses, it was held that the Crown was right to address: R v Varley [1973] 2 NSWLR 427 at 433; Varley v R (1976) 12 ALR 347; 51 ALJR 243.

172

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 152 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:39 bwpageid:: 172:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161]

The Crown Prosecutor should avoid intemperate language or appealing to the jury’s emotions when addressing: McCullough v R [1982] Tas R 43; (1982) 6 A Crim R 274; Whitehorn v R (1983) 152 CLR 657 at 663–4; 49 ALR 448 per Deane J; Vella v R (1990) 2 WAR 537; 47 A Crim R 119; R v Pernich and Maxwell (1991) 55 A Crim R 464; BC9102516. It is not appropriate for Crown counsel to express personal opinions or enter into the fray as a contestant: R v Callaghan [1994] 2 Qd R 300; (1993) 70 A Crim R 350; BC9303333 at 356. It was improper for a Crown Prosecutor to ask the jury to make inferences about matters which were not in evidence or to criticise the manner in which defence counsel cross-examined the complainant: R v Rugari (2001) 122 A Crim R 1; [2001] NSWCCA 64; BC200101379; (2001) 8 Crim LN 18 [1260]. It is not open to the Crown to address the jury on the basis that witnesses in the Crown case were in a “conspiracy of silence” where no such allegation had been put to the witnesses during the course of the trial: R v Teasdale (2004) 145 A Crim R 345; [2004] NSWCCA 91; BC200402027; (2004) 11 Crim LN 36 [1686]. Although the Crown must be fair, it does not mean that the prosecutor cannot criticise witnesses in the prosecution case: Cornelius and Briggs v R (1988) 34 A Crim R 49. The crown prosecutor should not during the address criticise a witness called in its case where no application was made under s 38 of the Evidence Act to have the witness treated as unfavourable or otherwise breached the rule in Browne v Dunn by challenging the witness: Kanaan v R [2006] NSWCCA 109; BC200602243; (2006) 13 Crim LN 53 [2071]. The crown prosecutor should not attempt to confine the warnings to be given by a trial judge during the course of addressing the jury: R v MM (2004) 145 A Crim R 148; [2004] NSWCCA 81; BC200401712 where it was stated that it was no business of the prosecutor to address on warnings as to delay in a sexual assault case. See also KNP v R (2006) 67 NSWLR 227; [2006] NSWCCA 213; BC200605532; (2006) 13 Crim LN 63 [2081] as to the limits of a Crown address. Where there is more than one accused, defence counsel can agree to the order of addresses, otherwise generally addresses are in the order that the names of the accused appear on the indictment: R v Antill and Brown (1863) 2 SCR (NSW) 50; R v Orton [1922] VLR 469; R v Webb and Hay (1992) 64 A Crim R 38; BC9200248 at 67–8. The power given to grant leave to the Crown to make a supplementary address is limited to those cases where counsel for the accused has asserted relevant facts which are not supported by the evidence and not merely because defence counsel has put arguments that are fallacious, illogical, extravagant or dishonest: R v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397; BC8801710. There should be no reference to the penalty for the offence: R v Costi (1987) 48 SASR 269 at 272; Attorney -General (SA) v Brown [1960] AC 432; [1960] ALR 395, or to the right of a jury to add a recommendation for mercy: R v Black [1963] WLR 1311. Counsel should not read extracts from text books: R v Giffın [1971] Qd R 12; R v Hay [1968] Qd R 459; R v McMahon (NSWCCA, 26 June 1996, unreported, BC9602908); (1996) 3 Crim LN 43 [589]. As to putting allegations that were not put to witnesses, see R v Bircham [1972] Crim LR 430.

[2-s 161] Summary by Judge 161 (1) At the end of a criminal trial before a jury, a Judge need not summarise the evidence given in the trial if of the opinion that, in all the circumstances of the trial, a summary is not necessary. (2) This section applies despite any rule of law or practice to the contrary. (3) Nothing in this section affects any aspect of a Judge’s summing up function other than the summary of evidence in a trial. [s 161 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[71], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s Note. Section 161 (previously s 99) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 405AA of the Crimes Act 1900.

173

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 153 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:39 bwpageid:: 173:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 161 Summing up generally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manner of summing up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions on unanimity in fact finding for a guilty verdict . . . . . . . Summing up on onus and standard of proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summing up on unanimous verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summing up in a circumstantial case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions as to the offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions as to the facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summing up on the defence case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions as to the evidence of the accused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warnings and directions as to witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions in relation to sexual assault cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Longman warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uncharged acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions on identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions as to confessions and admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions on consciousness of guilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) Lies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Post-offence conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Directions on intoxication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further directions after retirement of jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

s 161

[2-s 161.1] [2-s 161.5] [2-s 161.7] [2-s 161.10] [2-s 161.12] [2-s 161.15] [2-s 161.20] [2-s 161.25] [2-s 161.30] [2-s 161.35] [2-s 161.40] [2-s 161.45]

[2-s 161.55] [2-s 161.60] [2-s 161.62] [2-s 161.63] [2-s 161.65]

[2-s 161.1] Summing up generally A summing up should, in every case, not only include directions as to the ingredients of the offence which the Crown has to establish and an explanation of how the relevant law must be applied to the facts of the particular case, but it should also include a collected resume of the evidence which relates to each of the ingredients and a brief outline of the arguments which have been put in relation to that evidence [R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91; 47 A Crim R 211]. The summing up should not be a “disquisition on jurisprudence or philosophy or a universally applicable circular tour round the area of law affected by the case”: R v Lawrence [1981] 1 All ER 974; (1981) 73 Cr App R 1 at 5 referred to in Holland v R (1993) 117 ALR 193 at 200. It is not the function of a trial judge to expound to the jury principles of law going beyond those which the jurors need to understand to resolve the issues that arise for decision in the case and the law should be explained to the jury in a manner which relates it to the facts of the particular case and the issues to be decided: R v Chai (2002) 187 ALR 436; 76 ALJR 628; [2002] HCA 12; BC200200787 at [18]; 9(3) Crim LN [1412]. A summing up should be as succinct as possible in order not to confuse the jury: R v Flesch and McKenzie (1986) 7 NSWLR 554 at 558. It has been held that judges should generally seek to simplify and shorten summings up and should avoid lectures on the law and unnecessary explanations of legal principles: R v Williams (1990) 50 A Crim R 213. It is not necessary for the trial judge to instruct a jury on an element of liability for the offence charged where there is no issue about that element: Huynh v R (2013) 295 ALR 624; 87 ALJR 434; [2013] HCA 6; BC201301036; 20(6) Crim LN [3232], where the judge omitted to direct the jury on joint criminal enterprise. The court emphasised that the duty in the summing up was to direct the jury on the real issues in the trial and to inform the jury of the law that was necessary to decide those issues. The summing up should be a fair and balanced summary of the law, the issues and the respective cases for the prosecution and the defence but should not be a vehicle for strengthening the Crown case: R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355; BC200406985; 11(11) Crim LN [1797]. The judgment of Wood CJ at CL contains a review of cases concerning the content of a summing up and the limitations upon a judge raising matters not relied upon by the prosecution. For a summing

174

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 154 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:40 bwpageid:: 174:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.7]

up to be fair and balanced there must be a proper explanation of the defence case so that the jury, from the summing up alone, can comprehend the defence case: CC v R [2010] NSWCCA 337; BC201010020; 18(3) Crim LN [2877]. It is not necessary for the judge to sum up to the jury in accordance with suggested directions in the Criminal Trial Bench Book and a failure to do so is not indicative of error: Ith v R [2012] NSWCCA 70; BC201206758; 19(10) Crim LN [3125]. The summing up should address the real issues as the case is fought: Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 at 466; 59 ALR 101 at 116, and on the factual issues that arise: R v Sandford (1994) 33 NSWLR 172; R v Greatorex (1994) 74 A Crim R 496. The provisions of the section do not relieve the trial judge from explaining the respective cases to the jury and the application of the law to those cases: R v Condon (1995) 83 A Crim R 335 where it was stated that the task of the trial judge was to explain the application of the elements of the offence to the respective cases. The judge is not relieved from this duty by reference to addresses of counsel. The need for any exploration of the evidence and issues in a summing up is to be assessed having regard to the length of the trial, the way it has run, its complexity and the complexity of the factual matrix relevant to the issues. It is not necessary in every case that the trial judge is required to identify and repeat the points made by defence counsel and the relevant evidence: R v Davis [1999] NSWCCA 15; BC9900945; 6(2) Crim LN [970]; R v Williams (1999) 104 A Crim R 260; [1999] NSWCCA 9; BC9900944; 6(2) Crim LN [966]; Mencarious v R (2008) 189 A Crim R 219; [2008] NSWCCA 237; BC200809484. A judge cannot tell the jury that they cannot acquit the accused: Pemble v R (1971) 124 CLR 107 at 117, 132, 141; [1971] ALR 762; BC7100090; R v Williamson (No 1) (1996) 67 SASR 428; BC9606422. A judge should not in a case involving multiple counts direct the jury to adopt a sequential approach in determining the various counts: Norris v R (2007) 176 A Crim R 42; [2007] NSWCCA 235; BC200706197; 14(8) Crim LN [2278]. [2-s 161.5] Manner of summing up The trial judge can, in an appropriate case, sum up to the jury on each accused separately, or on each count, and take a verdict after each part of the summing up: Smith v R (1970) 121 CLR 572 at 581–583; [1971] ALR 183; Annakin v R (1988) 17 NSWLR 202; 37 A Crim R 131; BC8801294. This should be done in respect of a single accused only where really necessary: R v Houssein (1980) 70 Cr App R 267. The jury may be given written material as to the directions on the applicable law and the available verdicts, but they should be told that the written directions are only an aid to understanding the oral directions given: R v Petroff (1980) 2 A Crim R 101 at 113–6. The jury can be given written material as to the evidence in the case in exceptional cases: R v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183 at 195–8. The judge does not need to sum up in terms of suggested directions in the bench book and the issue is whether the directions are appropriate: R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377; BC200509320. Where the judge is required to sum up upon an element of the offence it is not sufficient simply to read the section of the Crimes Act defining the element: Pengilley v R [2006] NSWCCA 163; BC200603582; (2006) 13 Crim LN 55 [2073], where it was held that it was insufficient in directing the jury on recklessness merely to read to them s 5 of the Crimes Act. A jury may be given a chronology in a complex factual case: R (Cth) v Petroulias (No 34) [2007] NSWSC 1462; BC200711474; 15 Crim LN 27 [2353]; R v Dirani (No 19) [2018] NSWSC 1135; BC201813265. [2-s 161.7] Directions on unanimity in fact finding for a guilty verdict In some cases, a direction may be required that the jury must be unanimous in finding which one of particular facts occurred in order to establish criminal liability of the accused for the offence charged; see R v Walsh (2002) 131 A Crim R 299; [2002] VSCA 98; BC200203493 at [57]. A distinction is to be

175

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 155 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:41 bwpageid:: 175:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.7]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

made between alternative factual bases of liability and alternative legal formulations of liability based on the same or substantially the same facts: Cramp v R (1999) 30 MVR 9; 110 A Crim R 198; [1999] NSWCCA 324; BC9908058. In Lane v R [2017] NSWCCA 46; BC201701823; 24(5) Crim LN [3834] the Crown relied upon two distinct acts of the accused as the basis for a charge of murder or manslaughter in the alternative. It was held that the trial judge should have directed the jury as to unanimity in determining which act caused the death of the deceased because different considerations surrounded each act as to whether the act was voluntary and the accused’s state of mind. However, in the circumstances no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed by the application of the proviso. [2-s 161.10] Summing up on onus and standard of proof The trial judge should make it clear to the jury that the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt: Thomas v R (1960) 102 CLR 584 at 605; [1960] ALR 233; R v Jorgic (1963) 80 WN (NSW) 761; La Fontaine v R (1976) 136 CLR 62 at 84; 11 ALR 307; Van Leeuwen v R (1981) 55 ALJR 726 at 728; 36 ALR 591. However, the jury should not be directed that it is necessary to find every fact or every stage in the process of reasoning leading to the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 583–5; 97 ALR 161; Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 537, 599, 626; 51 ALR 225; Dominguez v R (1985) 63 ALR 181 at 191–2; Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; 117 ALR 600; BC9303562. The judge should not attempt to explain what is meant by the words “beyond reasonable doubt” unless counsel misdirects the jury in respect of this matter: Dawson v R (1961) 106 CLR 1 at 18; [1962] ALR 365; Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28 at 32–3; [1972] ALR 524; R v Flesch and McKenzie (1986) 7 NSWLR 554; R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109. It may be a misdirection to indicate to the jury that the question is whether the accused is guilty or innocent as it may lead the jury to think that an acquittal is based on a belief that the accused was guiltless: Bartho v R (1978) 52 ALJR 520 at 522; 19 ALR 418. It is necessary to view the directions concerning the onus and standard of proof in the context of the summing up as a whole: R v Ho (2002) 130 A Crim R 545; [2002] NSWCCA 147; BC200203698, where the decisions as to directions on onus and standard of proof are considered. In RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147; BC201004918; 17(8) Crim LN 124 [2782] the judge’s endeavours to explain a reasonable doubt were held to be erroneous but did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The issue of what a judge may say to a jury on the issue of standard of proof was considered by the High Court in R v Dookheea (2017) 347 ALR 529; 91 ALJR 960; [2017] HCA 36; BC201707191; 24 Crim LN [3906] where it was held that a judge did not bring about a miscarriage of justice by explaining to the jury the difference between a “reasonable doubt” and “any doubt” on the basis that a “reasonable doubt” was not any doubt that a reasonable jury might entertain. The accused was not entitled to the benefit of any doubt, but rather to “the benefit of what the jury as a whole considered to be a reasonable doubt”. The court indicated that the practice of contrasting the criminal standard of proof (ie proof beyond reasonable doubt) with that of the civil standard (ie proof on the balance of probabilities) is to be encouraged as it emphasises that the criminal standard is the highest known to law. It has been held not to have been an error for a trial judge to provide a jury with a dictionary when they asked for one in order to understand the words “beyond reasonable doubt”: R v Chatzidimitriou (2000) 1 VR 493; 112 A Crim R 95; [2000] VSCA 91; BC200002770; (2000) 7 Crim LN 48 [1167] where the cases on directions as to onus and standard of proof are reviewed extensively. There is no error in a judge describing beyond reasonable doubt as “ordinary everyday words” in order to indicate that they were words that needed no further explanation; R v Anderson (2001) 127 A Crim R 116; [2001] NSWCCA 488; BC200107630, particularly where the jury asked for a further explanation of the term: R v Southammavong [2003] NSWCCA 312; BC200306669; (2003) 10 Crim LN 86 [1620]. It is preferable that the trial judge tells the jury in such a situation that they set the standard of what is reasonable in terms of a doubt. There have been cases in which a summing up has been considered where, an exculpatory fact has arisen, such as self-defence or provocation, and the judge has directed the jury that the Crown

176

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 156 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:41 bwpageid:: 176:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.12]

case will fail if there is a reasonable possibility that the accused acted in self-defence or under provocation. The question is whether the jury might have understood from these directions that the onus was on the accused to prove these issues, even if only to the extent of a reasonable possibility, whereas the proper onus of proof remains on the Crown to exclude such a possibility. The issue is comprehensively dealt with in Towney v R [2018] NSWCCA 65; BC201802701; 25(5) Crim LN [3984] where the decisions in Hadchiti v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 671; [2016] NSWCCA 663; BC201610822 and Moore v R [2016] NSWCCA 185; BC201607068 are considered and contrasted. Provided that the direction on a reasonable possibility of the existence of an exculpatory fact is linked to a direction which the Crown must disprove that such a possibility exists, there is no error in the judge directing in terms of the existence of a reasonable possibility. To do so is not to seek to explain “beyond reasonable doubt” but simply to restate the onus in relation to the particular facts of the case, see Moore at [109] and Towney at [73]. The jury should not be told that it is a question of whether they believe one account or the other, or that their function is to determine where the truth lies: Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 at 515, 519; 61 ALR 623; R v El Mir (1957) 75 WN (NSW) 191; R v McDonald [1984] 1 NSWLR 428. This is especially so in relation to confessional evidence: R v Towner (1991) 56 A Crim R 221. It will usually be sufficient to inform the jury that it should acquit the accused if they believe that the accused’s version might possibly be true: R v Niass [2005] NSWCCA 120; BC200501841; (2005) 12 Crim LN 50 [1873]. The jury should not be told in a sexual assault case that the crucial theme is “why would the complainant lie?”: R v F (1995) 83 A Crim R 502; (1995) 2 Crim LN 82 [494]; R v E (1996) 39 NSWLR 450; (1996) 3 Crim LN 38 [581], where it was held that such a question should never be raised in directions to the jury as its effect is to reverse the onus of proof. However these cases should not be interpreted as excluding arguments being put to the jury relating to the validity of the motive to lie which has been asserted in relation to a witness in a particular case, although the judge might tell the jury that even if they rejected that motive it does not mean that the witness is telling the truth: R v Uhrig (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, Newman and Ireland JJ, 60200/1996, 24 October 1996, unreported, BC9605087); (1996) 3 Crim LN 75. These decisions were further considered in R v Jovanovic (1997) 98 A Crim R 1; 4 Crim LN 71 [769] where the correctness of R v E as interpreted in R v Uhrig was accepted and where it was confirmed that in the situation where no motive to lie has been raised by evidence or argument the question of “why would the complainant lie?” should not be raised before the jury. R v Uhrig and R v Jovanovic were further considered in R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 468; BC200007410; (2000) 7 Crim LN 90 [1218], where it was held that it was a matter for the trial judge to frame a direction suitable to the manner in which the issue was raised with the jury. In Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1; 151 ALR 16; (1998) 5 Crim LN 3, it was held that the approach in these cases was correct, and further that the accused should not be cross-examined as to whether he or she knows of any motive for the complainant to lie. It will usually be sufficient to inform the jury that it should acquit the accused if they believe that the accused’s version might possibly be true: R v Niass [2005] NSWCCA 120; BC200501841; (2005) 12 Crim LN 50 [1873]. It is not necessary that the jury be told of the presumption of innocence: Palmer v R (1998) 193 CLR 1; 151 ALR 16; (1998) 5 Crim LN 3. [2-s 161.12] Summing up on unanimous verdict There is no requirement that the trial judge tell the jury that their verdict must be unanimous and it is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge whether to give such a direction: Milgate v R (1964) 38 ALJR 162; R v Bacon [1973] 1 NSWLR 87. Where a jury has indicated that it cannot reach a unanimous verdict, a judge may give a direction in accordance with the model proposed in Black v R (1993) 179 CLR 44; 118 ALR 209; [1993] HCA 71; BC9303549 as, in effect, an exhortation to the jury to try to come to a unanimous decision. Such a direction should not be undermined by reference to the fact that a jury may at a specified time be able to give a majority verdict: see RJS v R 173 A Crim R 100; [2007] NSWCCA 241; BC200706355; 14(8) Crim LN 110 [2271], where it was held that the trial judge should have given the Black direction and then raised with counsel, in the absence of the jury, the issue as to

177

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 157 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:42 bwpageid:: 177:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.12]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

whether a majority verdict could be taken. See also Hanna v R (2008) 73 NSWLR 390; 191 A Crim R 302; [2008] NSWCCA 173; BC200806793, where the judge told the jury at the time of giving the Black direction that a majority verdict could immediately be given. In Doklu v R [2010] NSWCCA 309; BC201009853; 18(1) Crim LN 12 [2842] it was held that there was no error in the trial judge referring at the time of giving the Black direction that at some point in time a majority verdict might become available. Macfarlan JA indicated his view that it might be preferable to say nothing about the possibility of a majority verdict. [2-s 161.15] Summing up in a circumstantial case Where the Crown case in whole or part relies upon inferences drawn from basic facts proved on the evidence, consideration has to be given as to whether or not the jury should be directed that proof of guilt, or an essential ingredient of an offence, can only be inferred where there is no other reasonable conclusion arising from the evidence that is inconsistent with that inference: Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619 at 634; 17 ALR 566; BC1100014; Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234 at 243, 252; [1964] Qd R 170; [1964] ALR 267; BC6300520; Barca v R (1975) 133 CLR 82 at 104; 7 ALR 78; 50 ALJR 108; BC7500049; Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 536, 570, 599; 51 ALR 225; 58 ALJR 133; BC8400536; Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 578; 97 ALR 161; 65 ALJR 132; 51 A Crim R 181. However such a direction is not always necessary and it is no more than an amplification of the onus of proof on the Crown: Knight v R (1992) 175 CLR 495 at 502; 109 ALR 225; 66 ALJR 860; BC9202674; Shepherd v R, above at CLR 578; Grant v R (1975) 11 ALR 503 at 504; BC7500085; R v Keenan (2009) 236 CLR 397; 252 ALR 198; [2009] HCA 1; BC200900207 at [126]. It is not necessary to give such a direction where the facts are plain and so closely related as not to require a differentiation between the facts and the inferences to be drawn: Shepherd (No 2) v R (1988) 16 NSWLR 1; 37 A Crim R 466 at 471; BC8802300, or where the question is one of the intention of the accused: R v Tillott (1991) 53 A Crim R 46 at 50; BC9102139; Rogerson v R (1992) 65 A Crim R 530; BC9201414, but cf Knight v R, above at 863. The jury may be directed that they should not reject one circumstance simply because it standing alone does not lead to an inference of guilt: Medina v R (1990) 3 WAR 21 at 36–7; 46 A Crim R 132; R v McEndoo 5 A Crim R 52. All of the circumstances relied upon are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence: R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; 233 ALR 634; [2007] HCA 13; BC200701732 at [46]. A circumstantial case is not to be considered in a piecemeal fashion; Hillier at [48]. A direction by a trial judge in a circumstantial case that the jury should not speculate may result in the jury discounting reasonable scenarios arising on the evidence: R v McIntyre (2000) 111 A Crim R 211; [2000] NSWCCA 6; BC200000438; 7(2) Crim LN [1123]. There may be a case where, even though the Crown case is a circumstantial one, a particular fact is of such significance that it is an intermediate fact and “an indispensible step in the reasoning process toward an inference of guilt” so that it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt: Shepherd, above per Dawson J at [14]. This has come to be known as a “Shepherd direction” or a “links in a chain” case rather than a “strands in a cable” case. The necessity for such a direction was considered in Davidson v R (2009) 75 NSWLR 150; 195 A Crim R 406; [2009] NSWCCA 150; BC200904559 in which it was held that such a direction may be confusing to a jury in a case where there are numerous facts of different weight so that whether it is necessary depends upon the particular type of, and the number of, circumstances being relied upon by the Crown, cf R v Merrit [1999] NSWCCA 29; BC9900749 where there were only two circumstances relied upon. See also R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077. The relevant cases and principles are discussed in Burrell v R (2009) 196 A Crim R 199; [2009] NSWCCA 163; BC200905101 where it was held that such a direction should not be given if it deprived the jury of a consideration of possibilities clearly open on the Crown case. Where the circumstances raise the reasonable possibility that someone other than the accused committed the crime, a circumstantial evidence direction should be given: R v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226; BC9504366; 2(4) Crim LN 28 [373].

178

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 158 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:42 bwpageid:: 178:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.20]

A trial judge is not bound to direct a jury as to an alternative hypothesis arising on the evidence which was not relied upon by the accused’s counsel during the trial: R v Park [2003] NSWCCA 203; BC200304065; 10(7) Crim LN [1574]. But see Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 78; BC201503259; 22(5) Crim LN [3529] where it was held that the failure of a judge to place an alternative hypothesis before the jury, even though not relied upon by defence counsel, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It has been held that it is not necessary nor the practice to give a circumstantial evidence direction in respect of an accused’s state of mind: R v Rogerson (1992) 65 A Crim R 530 at 545; BC9201414. [2-s 161.20] Directions as to the offences The trial judge should explain to the jury the elements of the offence but the failure to refer to an element of the offence is not necessarily a miscarriage of justice: Holland v R (1993) 117 ALR 193. The trial judge should not present a version of the prosecution case or give a basis for conviction which was not relied upon by the Crown: King v R (1986) 161 CLR 423 at 432; 67 ALR 379. In R v Solomon [1980] 1 NSWLR 321 there was a miscarriage where murder by reckless indifference was left to the jury although not relied upon by the Crown. In R v Wong (1988) 37 A Crim R 385 the trial judge put a broader conspiracy than that which the Crown originally formulated. The trial judge should not put alternative verdicts unless they have been relied upon by the Crown during addresses: R v Cameron [1983] 2 NSWLR 66 at 71; R v Pureau (1990) 19 NSWLR 372; R v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178; BC9706994; R v Quinn (1991) 55 A Crim R 435. However, it is permissible where the parties have had an opportunity to deal with the count and there is no unfairness caused to the accused: R v Gulliford (2004) 148 A Crim R 558; [2004] NSWCCA 338; BC200406445; (2005) Crim LN 19. However, it is permissible where the parties have had an opportunity to deal with the count and there is no unfairness caused to the accused: R v Gulliford (2004) 148 A Crim R 558; [2004] NSWCCA 338; BC200406445; (2005) 11 Crim LN 19. The jury should be instructed as to the factual basis for any alternative verdict left to them: R v Pureau, above at 374, but the failure to do so does not mean there is necessarily a miscarriage of justice: Holland v R, above at 199, where the trial judge failed to direct the jury as to the basis of the finding of attempt. The trial judge is not generally required to leave alternative counts to the jury that are not included in the indictment unless requested to do so by the parties: James v R (2014) 306 ALR 1; 88 ALJR 427; [2014] HCA 6; BC201401091; 21(3) Crim LN [3342], where it was held that decisions of the court on the necessity of leaving manslaughter as alternative on a count of murder (see Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; 170 ALR 88; [2000] HCA 15; BC200001108 and Gillard v R (2003) 219 CLR 1; 202 ALR 202; [2003] HCA 64; BC200306728) did not apply generally. The issue is whether the trial was rendered unfair by the failure to leave an alternative verdict and depends upon all the circumstances, including the real issues at the trial and forensic choices made by counsel. Fairness may require that alternative be left not withstanding the objection of defence counsel. If there is more than one offence charged the jury should be directed to consider each independently: R v Towle (1954) 72 WN (NSW) 338. Where there are a number of counts based upon the evidence of a single witness the jury should be directed as to the importance of the evidence of the witness and the consequence upon the verdicts of any doubt which might arise as to the reliability of the witness in whole or in part: R v RAT (2000) 111 A Crim R 360; [2000] NSWCCA 77; BC200001229; (2000) 7 Crim LN 20 [1133]; R v Robinson (2000) 111 A Crim R 388; [2000] NSWCCA 59; BC200001594; (2000) 7 Crim LN 21 [1134]. It may be appropriate to indicate to the jury that they should only find different verdicts on the various counts if there is a rational and logical reason to do so based upon the evidence. The trial judge should not indicate that a “merciful” verdict of manslaughter is open to the jury unless the jury asks about it, but the jury are not to be told that they cannot bring in a verdict of a manslaughter even if there is no factual basis for such a verdict: Beavan v R (1954) 92 CLR 660 at 662; [1954] ALR 775; BC5400820; Gammage v R (1969) 122 CLR 444 at 451; [1970] ALR 385; BC6900630; Frost v R [1969] Tas SR 172 at 182; R v Markby (1978) 140 CLR 108 at 113;

179

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 159 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:43 bwpageid:: 179:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.20]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

21 ALR 448; BC7800067; R v Schneidas (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 713; Arrowsmith v R (1994) 55 FCR 130; BC9405675 at 143 (permissible to tell the jury that there is no evidentiary basis for the verdict and that they would be untrue to their oaths if they were to convict of manslaughter). The jury should not normally be told the consequences of the verdict: Frost v R, above at 177–8; R v Lucas (1970) 120 CLR 171 at 174–5; [1970] ALR 835; BC7000200. If the issue of mental illness is raised, the judge is to explain to the jury the legal and practical consequences of that finding: Pt 2, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. [2-s 161.25] Directions as to the facts The summing up should relate the facts to the issues at the trial and the relevant law and not be simply a summary of the evidence: Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437 at 466; 59 ALR 101 at 116; R v Zorad (1990) 19 NSWLR 91 at 105; 47 A Crim R 211 at 225. The provisions of s 99 do not relieve the trial judge of this obligation: R v Condon (1995) 83 A Crim R 335. The judge should collect the evidence on the matters in issue and summarise it to the jury: R v Tillott (1991) 53 A Crim R 46; BC9102139. It is not necessary for the trial judge to discuss all the evidence and analyse all the conflicts in it: Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 560–1; 106 ALR 203 at 206; 66 ALJR 285; R v Smart [1963] NSWR 706 at 713; R v Ali (1981) 6 A Crim R 161 at 165. The role of the judge in commenting on disputed facts in the course of a summing up was considered in McKell v R [2019] HCA 5; BC201900676. In that case it was held that comments by the trial judge in favour of the prosecution on particular disputed facts resulted in an unfair summing up and a miscarriage of justice. The court stated: What has sometimes been described as the “right” of the trial judge to comment on the facts of a case is not some form of entitlement standing free of constraints imposed by the judge’s duty to give the jury accurate and fair instruction to enable them to arrive at a just determination of the matters of which they are the sole arbiters. Where a trial judge’s summing-up so favours the prosecution as to deny the accused a fair trial, the miscarriage of justice that results cannot be justified or excused by invoking the judge’s “right” to comment on the facts. . . The plurality considered the judge’s “right” to comment on facts in general and at [48] held that: . . . there is a risk that comments that are unnecessary for the performance of the duty to give fair and accurate instructions to the jury may occasion a miscarriage of justice, and so a trial judge should be astute to avoid that risk by refraining from comment that is not so required. These points are most compelling in relation to expressions of opinion by a trial judge as to the determination of disputed issues of fact. The plurality went on to give reasons why it should now be considered that the trial judge should not generally comment on matters of fact unless it is necessary to make a comment (but not to express an opinion) in order to maintain the balance of fairness between the parties. As an example of a permissible comment, the plurality referred to Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28; 46 ALJR 545; [1972] ALR 524; BC7100550 where it was held that it would be proper and necessary for a trial judge to “restore but do no more than restore, the balance” in a case where: . . . during the course of a trial, particularly in his address to the jury, counsel for the accused has laboured the emphasis on the onus of proof to such a degree as to suggest to the minds of the jury that possibilities which are in truth fantastic or completely unreal ought by them to be regarded as affording a reason for doubt. . . The plurality in McKell, in answer to the Crown’s argument that a prohibition on a judge commenting on disputed facts would blur “the bright line” of a trial judge’s right to comment on facts, stated at [55]: . . . there should be little difficulty in a trial judge refraining from expressions of opinion on the determination of disputed issues of fact. Once it is accepted that the trial judge’s “right” to

180

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 160 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:43 bwpageid:: 180:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.30]

comment is best understood as a judicial power or discretion to be exercised judicially for the purpose of ensuring that the jury have a fair and accurate understanding of what they need to know to do justice in deciding the issues of fact that arise for their determination, any concern about the blurring of what is said to have been previously a “bright line” can be seen to be illusory. Generally speaking, the trial judge should not put an argument upon the facts which has not been put by counsel to the jury, and particularly where the trial turns entirely on the credibility of a single witness, the judge should not constrain or direct the jury’s thought processes unless required to do so and should refrain from giving the jury directions which suggest that they should think like lawyers: R v RTB [2002] NSWCCA 104; BC200201374. In that case the trial judge indicated to the jury that there might be an explanation for the evidence of the complainant which otherwise undermined her credibility where no such explanation was put forward by the Crown. The limitations upon a trial judge referring to matters not relied upon by counsel was considered in R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355; BC200406985; (2004) 11 Crim LN 115 [1797] where a number of decisions are considered. In that case the summing up was so heavily weighed in favour of the Crown with so little attention given to the defence case that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The evidence admissible in respect of each accused and the case made against each should be identified with particularity, and the jury should be directed to consider the cases separately: R v Towle (1954) 72 WN (NSW) 338 at 340; R v Checconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160; BC8801781; R v Cosgrove (1988) 34 A Crim R 299; BC8801612. Where there is common evidence or a common case against each accused it is unnecessary for the trial judge to repeat the same detail: R v Zorad, above, at NSWLR 105; A Crim R 225. The trial judge can direct a jury to find a particular conclusion on undisputed facts, including a finding of not guilty even where the accused has the onus of proof: R v Morgan; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1987] 2 Qd R 627; (1986) 24 A Crim R 342, but not where the inference to be drawn from undisputed facts is in dispute: R v Hill [1988] 1 Qd R 654 at 656, 659; R v Stewart; Ex parte A-G (Qld) [1989] 1 Qd R 590 at 592. Generally the jury should not be told that they should convict the accused even where the facts are admitted: Jackson v R (1976) 134 CLR 42; 9 ALR 65; BC7600039, but they may be told to do so if all the facts which are admitted prove the elements of the offence: Yager v R (1977) 139 CLR 28; 13 ALR 247; BC7700026. Motive and absence of motive are relevant considerations to the question of whether the accused committed the offence charged, but generally the prosecution does not have to prove motive and it is not necessary for a trial judge to direct the jury on the issue of motive or absence of motive where it is not an essential element of the crime charged: De Gruchy v R (2002) 211 CLR 85; 190 ALR 441; [2002] HCA 33; BC200204360; (2002) 9 Crim LN 66 [1469]. See the discussion in R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077 at [73] and following, where it was held that motive was merely one circumstance to be proved and did not have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. [2-s 161.30] Summing up on the defence case There is an obligation on a trial judge to put the defence case to the jury and explain the relevant law as it relates to that case, especially where the accused has a positive case upon which reliance is placed by defence counsel: Wong v R [2009] NSWCCA 101; BC200912274; 17(9) Crim LN 142 [2795]. But even where the accused’s case is not compelling there is an entitlement to have the judge direct the jury how the defence was advanced in the context of the evidence on which it is based: Maraache v R [2013] NSWCCA 199; 21(9) Crim LN [3438] where it was held that the trial judge should have indicated to the jury the defence explanations for incriminating phone calls. The summing up should be balanced and fairly present the prosecution and defence case. [The] accused’s entitlement [is] to have his case presented as an entirety with a comparable degree of segregation to that followed in summing up the Crown case to the jury [R v Veverka [1978] 1 NSWLR 478].

181

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 161 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:43 bwpageid:: 181:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.30]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

But it is not invariable that the defence case be presented as a separate entity: Dominguez v R (1985) 63 ALR 181 at 187; Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1 at 10; 43 ALR 619; Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 561; 106 ALR 203; [1992] HCA 13; BC9202665. A balanced summing up will not be achieved by under-weighing a strong case and over-weighing a weak one, and the balanced summing up will reflect the strength of the various cases: R v Ali (1981) 6 A Crim R 161. The judge can also take into account the nature of the addresses and attempt to redress any imbalance: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 314; [1959] ALR 367; BC5900240 per Windeyer J; R v Smart [1963] NSWR 706 at 715; (1962) 80 WN (NSW) 1125. The trial judge can take into account that the jury have been addressed by defence counsel: Raspor v R (1958) 99 CLR 346 at 352; Cleland v R, above at 10, and it is unnecessary for the trial judge to put all arguments put forward on behalf of the accused: Basto v R (1954) 91 CLR 628 at 627; R v Smart, above at 713; R v Lawrence [1980] 1 NSWLR 122; (1980) 32 ALR 72 at 125; Domican v R, above at CLR 561. The need to refer to any particular matter will depend upon the manner in which the case was conducted: R v Melville (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 579 at 581. A complaint that the judge failed adequately in the summing up to address on the defence case is to be determined having regard to the manner in which defence counsel addressed the jury and the issues in the trial: Roos v R [2019] NSWCCA 67; BC201902300; 26(5) Crim LN [4138]. The trial judge should leave for the consideration of the jury any matter that it could find for the accused which reasonably arises on the evidence, even though it has not been relied upon or has been abandoned by the defence at the trial: Pemble v R (1971) 124 CLR 107 at 117–8, 130; [1971] ALR 762; BC7100090; Varley v R (1976) 12 ALR 347; 51 ALJR 243 at 245; BC7600106; Viro v R (1978) 141 CLR 88 at 118; 18 ALR 257; BC7800022 (self-defence). As to the necessity to give directions on intoxication with respect to offences alleged to have been committed before 16 August 1996, see R v Galambos (1980) 2 A Crim R 388; R v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25; BC9001745. As to intoxication with respect to offences alleged to have been committed after 16 August 1996, see Pt 11A Crimes Act 1900 at [8-s 428A] ff. As to provocation see Parker v R (1964) 111 CLR 665; [1964] AC 1369; BC6400540; R v Guerin [1967] 1 NSWR 255; Van den Hoek v R (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 161–2; 69 ALR 1; (1987) 61 ALJR 19; Stingel v R (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 336; 97 ALR 1. This obligation must be met even if it gives an air of unreality to the case raised by the accused: R v Stokes and Difford, above at 32. The defence must reasonably arise and the trial judge should not put unreal or fanciful possibilities: R v Holden [1974] 2 NSWLR 548 at 551, or where it is only a speculative hypothesis: R v Brown (1987) 78 ALR 368; 32 A Crim R 162. The obligation to leave manslaughter to the jury on a trial for murder was considered in R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527; 157 A Crim R 238; [2005] NSWCCA 385; BC200509810 where it was held that if there is evidence to support an alternative verdict of manslaughter, the judge must leave that issue to the jury notwithstanding that it has not been raised by any party, and even if a party objects (or all parties object) to the issue being left to the jury. As to directions in relation to the accused’s character, see at [3-s 110]. A trial judge should not, unless it is an exceptional and unusual case, direct a jury in a criminal trial that, where there is no explanation for the failure of the defence to call a witness, they can infer that the evidence of that witness would not have assisted the accused’s case: Dyers v R (2002) 210 CLR 285; 192 ALR 181; BC200205956; see article at (2002) 9 Crim LN 58 [1491]. Nor should a judge allow the jury to raise questions about the accused’s failure to raise certain allegations with the complainant, where there was no breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn and no suggestion by the Crown that there had been: Llewellyn v R [2011] NSWCCA 66; BC201102125; 18(5) Crim LN 73 [2902]. [2-s 161.35] Directions as to the evidence of the accused The trial judge is entitled to direct the jury in relation to the failure of the accused to give evidence: see at [3- s 20]. In RPS v R (2000) 199 CLR 620; 168 ALR 729; [2000] HCA 3; BC200000084 it was held that the judge must in no way lead the jury to the view that that the accused’s failure to give evidence was because the accused was guilty of the offence. As to the appropriate directions to be given see at [3-s 20.1].

182

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 162 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:44 bwpageid:: 182:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.40]

It has been held that the failure of a judge to give a direction about the fact that the accused did not give evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice: Johnston v R [2007] NSWCCA 133; BC200703591; 14 Crim LN 75 [2228]. It is proper for a judge to direct the jury that a verdict of acquittal would follow if the jury accepted the accused’s evidence but also that they could have a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt even if the jury did not accept the accused’s evidence as being reliable: BM v R [2017] NSWCCA 133; BC201704587; 24(7) Crim LN [3878]. In relation to the drawing of inferences in a circumstantial case where the accused failed to give evidence, see Weissensteiner v R (1993) 178 CLR 217; 117 ALR 545; BC9303617. The application of that decision was also considered in RPS v R, above, where the application of that decision appears to have been limited. In R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077; (2000) 7 Crim LN 40 [1151] it was held that such a direction should only be given in an exceptional case, perhaps only where the line of reasoning is compelling, such as a circumstantial case where the innocent explanation for proved facts might only reasonably lie in the mouth of the accused. In R v Hannes (2000) 36 ACSR 72; 158 FLR 359; [2000] NSWCCA 503; BC200007407; (2001) 8 Crim LN 2 [1235] the appropriateness of directions were further considered and it was held that directions in that case were inadequate because they dealt with the failure of the accused to give evidence generally rather than with respect to specific identified matters in respect of which it could be said that evidence could come only from the accused. The application of Weissensteiner was considered in R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; BC201607352 in a case where the accused gave evidence denying that he had killed his wife and the relevance of that evidence to a finding that he unintentionally killed his wife, where the accused of course gave no evidence as to the circumstances in which his wife died. The court quoted from Weissensteiner: “In a criminal trial, hypotheses consistent with innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when that evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused.” In light of the evidence of the accused, it was not open to find that, contrary to the Crown case, the accused killed his wife but without the intent for murder. If the evidence was disbelieved, then it should not be simply put aside as irrelevant, because the jury could take that evidence into account when deciding that it was not a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the evidence that it was an unintended killing, “when the only witness who could have given evidence to support the hypothesis gave evidence which necessarily excluded it as a possibility”. As to directions in relation to the unsworn statement of the accused, see at [2-s 31.1]. The accused’s evidence should not be singled out for closer scrutiny than any other witness simply because he or she is the accused and has an interest in the outcome of the trial: Robinson v R (No 2) (1991) 180 CLR 531; 102 ALR 493; 65 ALJR 644; Stafford v R (1993) 67 ALJR 510; Brotherton v R (1992) 29 NSWLR 95; 65 A Crim R 301; R v Reeves (CCA(NSW), 13 September 1993, unreported); R v Asquith (1994) 72 A Crim R 250; Ramey v R (1994) 68 ALJR 917; R v McCallum (NSWCCA, Priestley JA, Smart and Ireland JJ, 60715/93, 13 April 1995, unreported); (1995) 2 Crim LN 30 [385]. In Hargraves v R (2011) 282 ALR 214; [2011] HCA 44; BC201108207; 18(11) Crim LN [2994] the decision in Robinson was further considered and held to be merely the application of a general principle which states that the jury should not be deflected from a proper evaluation of the onus and standard of proof. It did not stand for a new principle of general application as to what a judge could say about the evidence of an accused. But the court stressed that a judge should not instruct a jury to evaluate the evidence of an accused on the basis of his or her interest in the outcome of the trial. Where the defence counsel opening and the evidence given by the accused were inconsistent, the trial judge should draw to the jury’s attention any other reasons for the inconsistency other than that the accused had changed his or her instructions: R v Abdullah (2001) 127 A Crim R 46; [2001] NSWCCA 506; BC200107875. [2-s 161.40] Warnings and directions as to witnesses As to the requirement to give warnings as to unreliable evidence, see now Evidence Act 1995 s 165 at [3-s 165]. The section

183

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 163 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:44 bwpageid:: 183:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.40]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

requires that a warning be given in respect of evidence “of a kind that may be unreliable” and where a warning is sought by a party; see generally R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301; 124 A Crim R 371; [2001] NSWCCA 260; BC200105232; (2001) 8 Crim LN 69 [1326]. There is a difference between a warning and a comment, see Crampton v R (2000) 206 CLR 161; 176 ALR 369; [2000] HCA 60; BC200007092; (2000) 7 Crim LN 89 [1217]. Generally, a comment is a reminder of evidence or what was said in address by counsel, whereas a warning carries with it judicial authority. In respect of a witness, whose potential unreliability would not be readily apparent to the jury, the trial judge is required to direct the jury that they should scrutinise the evidence of the witness with care: Longman v R (1989) 168 CLR 79 at 91; 89 ALR 161 at 170; BC8902688; Bromley v R (1986) 161 CLR 315 at 323–4; 67 ALR 12 at 18; Carr v R (1988) 165 CLR 314 at 325; 81 ALR 236 at 243; Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558; 108 ALR 1; 62 A Crim R 190; BC9202688. See generally as to warnings at common law: R v Stewart, above. A warning will be required wherever judicial experience indicates that special attention or care is required when assessing the evidence: R v Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330; BC200006176. No set formula is required and the content of the caution is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge: Longman v R, above at CLR 85; ALR 166; see s 165(3) of the Evidence Act. Although a trial judge should inform the jury that the warning is not due to any personal view and that the warning is given as a matter of law in every case, the repetition of such a statement should be avoided as it may lead the jury to minimise the effect of the warning in the particular case: R v Roddom [2001] NSWCCA 168; BC200102187; (2001) 8 Crim LN 31 [1284]; R v Stewart, above. The content of the warning is found in s 165(2), but the judge is not required to comply with that section if there are good reasons for not doing so: R v Stewart, above at [122]. A direction may be required in any case where the only evidence against the accused is the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness: Murray v R (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; 30 A Crim R 315; BC8701238. However, such a direction is not required in every case: R v Glencourse (1995) 78 A Crim R 256; (1995) 2 Crim LN 30 [384]. See also Laughton v R [2019] NSWCCA 74; BC201902639; 26(5) Crim LN [4139] as to when such a direction is required. Directions can be given where the witness hopes to be paid for giving evidence: R v Oliver (1984) 57 ALR 543. A warning may be required where there is any unfairness to the accused from the nature of the evidence or the manner of the investigation of the offence: R v King [2000] NSWCCA 507; BC200007789. A warning, similar to a Longman warning, may be required where evidence has been lost or destroyed: R v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367; BC200205109; (2002) 9 Crim LN 74 [1480], where the weapon was destroyed after being tested by police experts and defence experts had not had the opportunity of testing the weapon. As to a witness within s 165(1)(d) of the Evidence Act, see R v Stewart, above, where it was held that the trial judge should not use the term “accomplice”. A direction should be given where the accomplice has been given an immunity: R v Checconi (1988) 34 A Crim R 160; BC8801781 at 171; R v Chai (1992) 27 NSWLR 153; 60 A Crim R 305. Where the witness has been given a sentencing discount by reason of an undertaking to give evidence against the accused the jury should be warned both as to the fact of the discount and the right of the Crown to appeal if the undertaking is not fulfilled: R v Stewart, above. A direction should be given in relation to prisoner informants because the evidence is easily concocted, the informer will be of bad character, and has a motive to fabricate: Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558; 108 ALR 1; 62 A Crim R 190; BC9202688; R v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396; 64 A Crim R 451 and s 165(1)(e) of the Evidence Act. However, evidence by a police informer who is not in gaol does not require a special warning: R v Dellapatrona (1993) 31 NSWLR 123 at 148. An informer direction is not required merely because the witness is giving evidence of matters that occurred in a prison: R v Hudd (NSWCCA, Carruthers, Newman and Dowd JJ, 60800/1993, 9 December 1994, unreported, BC9403564); (1995) 2 Crim LN 14 [340]. Jones v Dunkel does not apply in criminal trials so a trial judge should not generally comment on the failure of the parties to call a witness except that, where the Crown is the party, the judge can raise with the jury whether the failure to call the witness gives rise to a reasonable doubt about

184

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 164 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:45 bwpageid:: 184:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.45]

the Crown’s case: Louizos v R [2009] NSWCCA 71; BC200901713; (2009) 16(4) Crim LN 55 [2537] applying Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397; 241 ALR 606; [2008] HCA 1; BC200800188. The rule in Browne v Dunn in reference to a criminal trial was considered in MWJ v R (2005) 222 ALR 436; 80 ALJR 329; [2005] HCA 74; BC200510463; (2006) 13 Crim LN 137 [1982] where the majority of the court warned that reliance on the rule can be misplaced and overstated and that generally any failure to put a matter to a witness can be cured by recall of that witness. It was also held that judges should in general abstain from making adverse findings against a party because of a breach of the rule. It will only be where the accused has refused to take up the offer of the witness being recalled for further cross-examination that criticism might be made. In applying the rule it is essential to have regard to the accusatory character of a criminal trial. If the rule is to be applied the trial judge should draw to the attention of the jury any other possible cause for failure of counsel to cross-examine the witness on the particular matter other than that the accused has changed his version, for example, that counsel may have overlooked the matter or misunderstood the instructions, or a looseness in framing questions: R v GED (2003) 141 A Crim R 135; [2003] NSWCCA 296; BC200306070; (2003) 10 Crim LN 79 [1611]. Although the judge inappropriately made comments to the jury about the failure of defence counsel to raise matters with prosecution witnesses — indicating that the jury could draw the conclusion that the accused had not given those instructions to counsel — it was held that there was no miscarriage of justice in RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147; BC201004918; 17(8) Crim LN 125 [2783]. A judge ought not to comment on the fact that a witness’s evidence was not challenged or contradicted on a certain point where there was no real opportunity for the defence to challenge the witness, for example, on evidence of complaint: Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277; BC201008919; 18(1) Crim LN 13 [2843]. There is no requirement to give a jury a warning about the reliability or otherwise of unsworn evidence given by a child under the provisions of the Evidence Act: R v GW (2016) 328 ALR 583; 90 ALJR 407; [2016] HCA 6; BC201601128; 23(3) Crim LN [3662]. [2-s 161.45] Directions in relation to sexual assault cases Decisions in this area should be considered now in light of ss 294 and 294AA of this Act in relation to directions as to lack of complaint and the uncorroborated evidence of any complainant and ss 165A and 165B of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to warnings about the evidence of children and the delay in the prosecution of an offence. The operative law on warnings will depend upon the date the relevant provision commenced. In relation to ss 294 and s 294AA, they apply to trials where the accused was charged after 1 January 2007: see TJ v R (2009) 197 A Crim R 508; [2009] NSWCCA 508; BC200909613; 16(11) Crim LN 160 [2646]. The two Evidence Act provisions apply to trials commencing after 1 January 2009, see GG v R [2010] NSWCCA 230; BC201007553; 17(11) Crim LN 173 [2826]. The operation of these provisions will determine what is said by the trial judge about cautions and warnings. Note that the checklist of directions given in R v BWT (2002) 54 NSWLR 241; 129 A Crim R 153; [2002] NSWCCA 60; BC200201654; 9(4) Crim LN 32 [1424] in the judgment of Wood CJ at CL at [32] is of little assistance in light of statutory and other changes that have occurred since it was given. Longman warning The following applies only where a Longman direction on the effect of delay is required because the relevant legislative provision, s 165B, does not apply. The nature of the warnings required were extensively considered in TJ v R, above, in the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL, see at 16(11) Crim LN 165 [2651]. Where there is substantial delay in the complaint of alleged sexual offences, a warning must be given that, because of forensic difficulties caused by that delay, including the inability to test the complainant fully, the defence has been prejudiced and the jury must scrutinise the evidence with great care before convicting upon it. No particular words are required and it is not necessary

185

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 165 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:45 bwpageid:: 185:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.45]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

to use the words “dangerous to convict”: TJ v R, above at [59]. But the warning must meet the particular circumstances of the trial and in some cases it may be necessary to indicate the specific disadvantages identified by the defence. What is said should amount to a warning whether the word “warn” is used or not, and a comment is insufficient: see TJ v R, above, at [78] and [126], where it was held by the majority that there was no error where the judge cautioned the jury that it may be wrong to convict. Where it is necessary to give a Longman direction the judge should not refer to the difficulties in the Crown case caused by delay, however, although a judge should be cautious about referring to evidence that might have been available to the Crown had there been no delay in investigation, some comment could be made about the effect of delay on the Crown case in an appropriate case: Erohin v R [2006] NSWCCA; BC200601979; 13(5) Crim LN 41 [2059]. Multiple counts In trials where there are multiple counts it will often be appropriate to direct jurors that where they entertain a reasonable doubt concerning the truthfulness or reliability of a complainant’s evidence in relation to one or more counts that must be taken into account in assessing the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant’s evidence generally: R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82; 125 A Crim R 186; [2001] NSWCCA 290; BC200104359. But such a direction will depend upon the particular case and is not required simply because the complainant’s evidence supports more than one count, and it is not appropriate where there may be reasons for the jury to convict on one count but acquit on another: R v GAR [2003] NSWCCA 224; BC200304769; 10(8) Crim LN 62 [1583]. In R v ARD [2000] NSWCCA 443; BC200006761; 7(10) Crim LN 86 [1213], the court held that there was no obligation upon a trial judge to give the directions referred to in R v RAT (2000) 111 A Crim R 360; [2000] NSWCCA 77; BC200001229; 7(3) Crim LN 20 [1133] and R v Robinson [2000] NSWSC 972; BC200006239; 7(10) Crim LN 85 [1212]. In particular, the jury ought not to be told that if they brought in different verdicts where there was no apparent reason to do so the guilty verdicts may be set aside as being a compromise; the jury should not generally be directed as to the consequences of its verdict or verdicts. It has been stated that a trial judge should not tell a jury that it can use a finding of guilt on one charge as assisting in the determination of other charges unless careful directions are given to explain how the jury might reason in that way, for example by finding guilty passion: R v AN (2000) 117 A Crim R 176; [2000]NSWCCA 372; BC200006805; 7(10) Crim LN 87 [1214]. As to the need to give the jury warnings about reasoning from a finding of guilt of the accused of one charge: see KRM v R (2001) 206 CLR 221; 178 ALR 385; [2001] HCA 11; BC200100684; 8(2) Crim LN 15 [1258], where it was held that such a warning is not generally required provided that the jury are directed to consider each count in the indictment separately. Where there are offences before the jury involving more than one complainant the trial judge should warn the jury against using the evidence of one complainant as proof of the offences involving the other complainant: R v Mitchell (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Cole, Sperling JJ, 60321/94, 5 April 1995, unreported, BC9504682); 2(7) Crim LN 51; R v Mayberry [2000] NSWCCA 531; BC200007665; 8(1) Crim LN 7 [1243]; KRM v R, above. However, an anti-tendency direction is not required, even though two complainants were giving evidence about separate incidents, where there was no real possibility that the jury would use the evidence of one complainant in deciding the case involving the other complainant: Lyndon v R [2014] NSWCCA 112; BC201404949; 21(7) Crim LN [3394]. Uncharged acts Where evidence of other uncharged acts is admitted the trial judge should direct the jury as to the purpose for which the evidence was admitted and the basis upon which they may use that evidence and warn them against its misuse: see R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475; BC200007412; 7(11) Crim LN 93 [1224], where the evidence was admitted to prove context and to explain the behaviour of the complainant; and R v MM (2000) 112 A Crim R 519; [2000] NSWCCA 78; BC200002702; 7(5) Crim LN 42 [1157] where the evidence was admitted for the purpose of proving guilty passion.

186

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 166 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:46 bwpageid:: 186:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.55]

Generally the trial judge should warn the jury that they cannot substitute the uncharged acts for the offences appearing in the indictment and that the accused cannot be convicted merely because the jury is satisfied that the accused committed other acts of impropriety against the complainant. See also R v Greenham [1999] NSWCCA 8; BC9900796; 6(3) Crim LN 28 [987]; R v RNS [1999] NSWCCA 122; BC9908888 and generally BRS v R (1997) 191 CLR 275; 148 ALR 101; [1997] HCA 47; BC9704586, where the evidence admitted was acts committed against a person other than the complainant. The duty of the Crown to ensure proper directions in respect of this type of evidence was stressed in R v ATM, above. A direction or warning concerning tendency reasoning in cases where evidence of other acts is introduced for context purposes is not required where there is no realistic possibility that the jury would use the evidence for tendency reasoning: see Toalepai v R [2009] NSWCCA 270; BC200909849; 17(1) Crim LN 12 [2666], where the child indicated that the conduct occurred whenever her mother went out to Bingo or shopping. In that case, reference was made to Rodden v R (2008) 182 A Crim R 227; [2008] NSWCCA 53; BC200801750 and it was held that the case should not be taken to require a direction to be given merely because the complainant said it happened “millions of times”. Similarly, where there are uncharged acts occurring as part of the events giving rise to the offences charged, it is unnecessary to give a warning against tendency reasoning where the uncharged acts were not relied upon as evidence of tendency or relationship: Wen Sheng Jiang v R [2010] NSWCCA 277; BC201008919. Where the evidence is before the jury because the Crown relies upon it as evidence of tendency, the jury is to be directed that before it can be used for that purpose the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt both that the other acts alleged, or any of them, occurred and that if they are so satisfied that the tendency asserted arises from any or all of those acts, otherwise they should disregard the alleged tendency: DJS v R [2010] NSWCCA; BC201007150; 17(10) Crim LN 159 [2813]. As to directions on the motive of the complainant to lie, see [2-s 161.10]. As to relationship evidence, see annotations to s 97 of the Evidence Act at [3-s 97.10]. As to the directions in relation to complaint evidence, see [8-s 611.10] and [2-s 294.1]. It has been held that in a sexual assault case a “Murray direction”, a warning that the jury should scrutinise the evidence of an uncorroborated complainant with care, should not be given as it would infringe s 294AA(2) of the Act: Ewen v R [2015] NSWCCA 117; BC201504420; 22(6) Crim LN [3534]. [2-s 161.55] Directions on identification As to the requirement to give directions on identification, see at [3-s 116] and at [3-s 165]. Directions under s 116 are not required where the identification of the accused is not in issue: Dhanhoa v R (2003) 217 CLR 1; 199 ALR 547; [2003] HCA 40; BC200304262; (2003) 10 Crim LN 63 [1584]. The requirements for direction on identification evidence under these sections was considered in R v Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414; BC9705745; (1997) 4 Crim LN 67 [760], where it was held that it is not necessary that the judge use any particular form of words and in particular that it is not necessary that the jury be directed of the “danger” or “dangers” of such evidence provided that the special need for caution be made clear to the jury and the need for such caution be explained. The mandatory nature of the need to direct in accordance with s 116 was emphasised in R v Demiroz [2003] NSWCCA 146; BC200303668; (2003) 10 Crim LN 54 [1573]. The warning under s 165 does not need to take any particular form and there is no checklist to be followed: R v Allen (1984) 16 A Crim R 441; R v De Cressac (1985) 1 NSWLR 381 at 384; R v Finn (1988) 34 A Crim R 425; BC8801739. The directions must be appropriate to the circumstances of the case: R v Aziz [1982] 2 NSWLR 322 at 328; R v Allen, above at 445. The warning should carry the weight of judicial experience: Davies and Cody v R (1937) 57 CLR 170; 43 ALR 321; [1937] VLR 205 at CLR 182-3. As to the matters that should be addressed in the general directions, see R v Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312; BC9501897; (1995) 2 Crim LN 91 [514].

187

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 167 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:46 bwpageid:: 187:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.55]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

The trial judge should isolate and identify matters which may reasonably be regarded as undermining the reliability of the identification evidence: Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 562; 106 ALR 203; 66 ALJR 285, however, it is unnecessary that the trial judge point out all the weakness in the evidence that may later be found to exist: Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555 at 560–1; 106 ALR 203 at 206; 66 ALJR 285 per Brennan J at 568; R v Clarke (1993) 71 A Crim R 58. It is not necessary for the judge to refer to every argument by defence counsel on the question of identification: R v Richards (CCA(NSW), 27 November 1995, unreported, BC9501889). Although the trial judge is bound to direct the jury to take into account matters which may affect the reliability of the identification, it is not necessary that the judge tell the jury that the evidence is in fact weakened by such matters, nor is it necessary for the trial judge always to refer to matters affecting the credit of the identifying witness: R v Heuston (1995) 81 A Crim R 387; BC9504804; (1995) 2 Crim LN 44 [411]–[412]. Adequate directions must be given notwithstanding that there may be other evidence upon which the accused could be convicted: Domican v R, above at 565. Directions on identification should be given in cases where the identification relates to an object where the identification of the object is crucial to the Crown case: R v Clout (1995) 41 NSWLR 312; BC9501897; (1995) 2 Crim LN 91[514] where the Crown case rested on the correctness of the identification of a vehicle as that driven by the accused. As to warnings in identification from photographs, see Alexander v R (1981) 145 CLR 395; 34 ALR 289. As to the directions to be given to the jury in respect of the accused’s refusal to take part in a line up, see McCarthy v R (1993) 71 A Crim R 395. The jury should be told that it is the fundamental right of the accused to refuse to take part and no conclusion as to the guilt of the accused can be taken from the exercise of that right. In relation to identification of voice the jury should consider whether there are distinctive characteristics which make the voice recognisable: R v Brownlowe (1986) 7 NSWLR 461 at 464; 24 A Crim R 377. However, where the witness was familiar with the voice it is not necessary that there be distinguishing features: Brotherton v R (1992) 29 NSWLR 95; 65 A Crim R 301; R v Hayden (CCA(NSW), 14 July 1993, unreported). [2-s 161.60] Directions as to confessions and admissions A warning may be required under s 165 of the Evidence Act in respect of an admission under Part 3.4 of the Act, s 165(1)(a), or official questioning which has been recorded in writing and has not been signed or acknowledged by the accused, s 165(1)(f) at [3-s 165]. See generally R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077 at [180] and following. [2-s 161.62] Directions on consciousness of guilt The Crown can rely upon post-offence conduct by the accused as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Such conduct will usually be a lie told by the accused in reference to the commission of the offence or flight from arrest or trial. However, the conduct is not limited to these two categories and could include, for example, destruction of evidence. (a) Lies As to lies generally see at [3-s 164.1]. It has been held that very great care is required in relation to lies: R v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697; BC8601171; R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234; R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077; (2000) 7 Crim LN 40 [1151]. Evidence of lies told by the accused can be used in three ways, (a) as evidence going to the credibility of the accused; (b) as evidence of a “consciousness” of guilt which may support other evidence in the Crown case; (c) in an exceptional case as evidence amounting to an admission. The trial judge should require the prosecutor to indicate the way lies are being relied upon if there is any doubt on the matter: Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234; 172 ALR 1; [2000] HCA 28; BC200002718 (2000) 7 Crim LN 43 [1158]; R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616; [2003] NSWCCA 227; BC200304977; (2003) 10 Crim LN 70 [1597]. In the case of (a) above, the judge should not raise the question of a consciousness of guilt

188

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 168 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:46 bwpageid:: 188:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 161.62]

unless it is necessary to do so in order to dispel any confusion which may have arisen by addresses: Zoneff v R, above, where a model direction is given which might be applicable in an appropriate case in this category. In such a case, unless the judge believes that there is a real danger that the jury might use them as evidence of guilt, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to give an Edwards direction as is required in (b) below: Dhanhoa v R (2003) 217 CLR 1; 199 ALR 547; [2003] HCA 40; BC200304262; (2003) 10 Crim LN 63 [1585]; R v Ray, above. Such a direction was necessary where, despite the Crown indicating to the trial judge it was not relying upon a consciousness of guilt, the contents of the Crown address raised the issue: R v Campbell [2005] NSWCCA 132; BC200502032; (2005) 12 Crim LN 49 [1872]. In (b) above the jury should be directed that they can take a lie into account only if they are satisfied that it reveals a knowledge of the offence or some aspect of it and that it was a deliberate lie told because the accused knew the truth of the matter would implicate him in the offence: Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; 117 ALR 600; BC9303562. There is an extensive consideration of the use of lies as consciousness of guilt in R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157; BC201105360. In R v Dellapatrona (1993) 31 NSWLR 123 at 123 it was held that an appropriate direction would be “before a lie by the accused can [support] particular evidence in the Crown case, the jury must be satisfied that it was a deliberate lie, that it related to an issue in that evidence which is material to the offence charged and that it was told by the accused because he feared that he would be found guilty if he told the truth or because he was unable to give an innocent explanation or account of his conduct as identified in that evidence”. The Crown should indicate precisely what lies the Crown relies upon under this category and the trial judge should identify the lies to the jury with precision: R v Ray, above; and see generally R v Fowler (2003) 151 A Crim R 166; [2003] NSWCCA 321; BC200307077 at [42] where it was held that the directions on lies should go no further than are necessary to direct the jury as to the way they can be used in order to prove guilt or otherwise. Such a direction was necessary where, despite the Crown indicating to the trial judge it was not relying upon a consciousness of guilt, the contents of the Crown address raised the issue: R v Campbell [2005] NSWCCA 132; BC200502032; (2005) 12 Crim LN 49 [1872]. The trial judge should indicate to the jury that there may be reasons why an accused might lie other than because it discloses a consciousness of guilt of the offence charged. In the case of (c) if the jury intend to rely upon the lie as an admission of guilt to prove the offence they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it does amount to an admission of the offence charged. Where the prosecution is relying upon a lie as part of the circumstantial case, it is not necessary that it prove the lie beyond reasonable doubt: R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510; [1999] NSWCCA 189; BC9904090 at [55]; R v Fowler, [2003], above, at [55]. (b) Post-offence conduct A consciousness of guilt can arise from the conduct of the accused following the alleged commission of the offence. This can include flight, disposal of the body or other conduct which points to the accused’s guilt in a circumstantial case. As to evidence of flight see [3-s 164.1]. Evidence of flight can be admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt where it is open to the jury to conclude that the accused sought to avoid arrest or trial for the charge upon which he or she is before the jury. The jury must be directed as to the way it can use such evidence, in a similar way to the directions in relation to the use of lies as a consciousness of guilt: R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52; BC200401046. The directions to be given were considered in Quinlan v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 106; [2006] NSWCCA 284; BC200607184. Evidence of flight may be so connected with the offence that it may be unnecessary to give a direction on consciousness of guilt: Ristevski v R [2007] NSWCCA 87; BC200702579 where the accused fled from the scene after being stopped by the police who found drugs in the vehicle in which the accused had been driving.

189

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 169 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:47 bwpageid:: 189:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 161

[2-s 161.62]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 161

There are difficulties in using the evidence where there is the possibility of an included offence such as murder and manslaughter and the jury must be directed that the evidence cannot be used in relation to a specific offence, but it may be relevant to a particular fact, such as that the accused was involved in unlawful conduct: R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; 46 MVR 461; [2006] VSCA 263; BC200609818, or that the accused did not act in self-defence: Steer v R (2008) 191 A Crim R 435; [2008] NSWCCA 295; BC200810923, or provocation: Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69; BC201502779. The evidence can be used to prove the accused’s mental state to distinguish between murder and manslaughter: SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103; BC201310229 at [63]. The situation was considered in R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; BC201607352 where the court approved the decision in Lane v R (2013) 241 A Crim R 321; [2013] NSWCCA 317; BC201315787 which held that lies themselves could prove that the accused was guilty of murder rather than manslaughter in the circumstances of that case. The High Court held that post offence conduct was not always intractably neutral on the issue of murder or manslaughter but could be of such a nature to permit a jury to conclude that it was inconsistent with a killing that was unintentional. The evidence had to be considered as a whole with the other evidence in the case and not in a piecemeal fashion. It was held that the conduct of the accused after the killing was intractably neutral and could not give rise to a consciousness of guilt of murder as opposed to any other alternative offence available to the jury: Decision restricted [2018] NSWCCA 288; 26(2) Crim LN [4088]. [2-s 161.63] Directions on intoxication In directing a jury on the relevance of intoxication the trial judge should avoid referring to the effect of intoxication on the capacity to form the relevant intent as the reference to capacity is unnecessary and confusing and it might divert the jury from the real issue of whether the Crown has proved that the accused formed the necessary intention: R v Makisi (2004) 151 A Crim R 245; [2004] NSWCCA 333; BC200406846; (2004) 11 Crim LN 103 [1781] applying R v Coleman (1990) 19 NSWLR 467; 47 A Crim R 306. The obligation on a judge to direct a jury on intoxication was considered in Sullivan v R [2011] NSWCCA 270; BC201109699; 19(2) Crim LN [3025] in which there is a consideration of numerous cases concerned with when to give a direction on the issue of intoxication. It was held that the evidence as to the accused’s use of drugs and their effect on him was minimal and imprecise and thus did not warrant a direction on the effect of intoxication being given to the jury. [2-s 161.65] Further directions after retirement of jury The judge may recall the jury after it has retired for correction of directions and should direct the jury to further consider the matter in the light of the further directions: R v Plimmer (1975) 61 Cr App R 264. As to counsel’s responsibilities in respect of correcting errors in the summing up, see at [7-640].

[2-s 162] Alternative verdict of attempt on trial for any indictable offence 162 If, on the trial of a person for any indictable offence, the jury is not satisfied that the person is guilty of the offence, but is satisfied that he or she is guilty of: (a) an attempt to commit the offence, or (b) an assault with intent to commit the offence, it may acquit the person of the offence charged and find the person guilty of the attempt or assault, and the person is liable to punishment accordingly. [s 162 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[74], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s Note. Section 162 (previously s 124) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 427 of the Crimes Act 1900.

190

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 170 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:47 bwpageid:: 190:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 164]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 162 Verdict of attempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 162.1] [2-s 162.1] Verdict of attempt The common law permitted an alternative verdict to be returned for a lesser included offence not charged in the indictment: R v Cameron [1983] 2 NSWLR 66 at 67–70; (1983) 8 A Crim R 466; Winner v R (1989) 39 A Crim R 180 at 181; BC8902493. If an alternative verdict is open on the evidence, a trial judge should leave it for the jury’s deliberation regardless of the attitude of the accused: R v King (2004) 59 NSWLR 515; 144 A Crim R 405; [2004] NSWCCA 20; BC200400589; Sheen v R [2011] NSWCCA 259; BC201109701 at [75]–[79] 19(2) Crim LN [3016]. Where an alternative verdict of attempt is to be relied upon it should be raised by the prosecution when opening the case: R v Cameron. If it is not raised at that time, but becomes an issue in the trial, it should be raised by the court prior to closing addresses to afford counsel an opportunity to make submissions: Pureau v R (1990) 19 NSWLR 372 at 376; 47 A Crim R 230. It is unwise, and as a matter of proper trial practice is undesirable, for a judge to raise the issue with the jury, without notice to the parties, during the summing-up: R v Cameron at 71; Pureau v R at 376; Sheen v R at [82], [90]. A trial judge should explain the basis of the alternative verdict to the jury: Pureau v R; R v Crisologo (1997) 99 A Crim R 178; BC9706994. The failure of a trial judge to raise with the parties the prospect of an alternative verdict before the topic is raised with the jury will not necessarily result in a miscarriage of justice. The question for an appellate court is whether there was practical injustice, by way of procedural or substantive unfairness, so as to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice has occurred: Sheen v R at [83]–[94]. As to attempt, see [6-300].

[2-s 163] No further prosecution after trial for serious indictable offence where alternative verdict possible 163 If under any Act a person who is tried for a serious indictable offence may be acquitted of that offence but found guilty of some other offence, the person is not liable to further prosecution on the same facts for that other offence. [s 163 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[74], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s Note. Section 163 (previously s 125) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 426 of the Crimes Act 1900.

[2-s 164] Joint trial in case of perjury 164 If: (a) a number of persons are severally indicted for perjury or false swearing, and (b) the statements alleged to be false: (i) are alleged to have been made on the same occasion, before the same court or tribunal and in respect of the same subject-matter, and (ii) are in each case to the same effect, whether in identical terms or not, all of those persons may be tried together, at the same time and before the same jury, provided that each person is to have his or her full right of challenge. [s 164 insrt Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[31], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[75], opn 7 July 2003] Editor’s Note. Section 164 (previously s 123) was inserted by s 4 and Sch 2 of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sentencing) Act 1999 No 94. The provision was previously contained in s 423A of the Crimes Act 1900.

191

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 171 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:47 bwpageid:: 191:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 164

[2-s 164A]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 164A

[2-s 164A] Judge unable to continue in trial by jury 164A (1) If the presiding judge of criminal proceedings being tried by a jury in the District Court or the Supreme Court dies, becomes ill or is otherwise unable to continue the proceedings (the former presiding judge), the senior judicial officer of the relevant court may, after hearing submissions from the parties to the proceedings: (a) nominate another judge of the court (the new presiding judge) to take over the conduct of the proceedings, or (b) discharge the jury and order a new trial. (2) Before making a decision to nominate a new presiding judge, the senior judicial officer must consider whether it would be in the interests of justice to do so, including (but not limited to) the following matters: (a) whether the new presiding judge will be available to take over the conduct of the proceedings within a reasonable time, (b) whether a transcript, audio or video recording of all of the proceedings is available, (c) the time that will be required for the new presiding judge to familiarise himself or herself with any available transcript or audio or video recording of the proceedings, and with any evidence that has been given in the proceedings, (d) the submissions from the parties, (e) the progress of the trial, including whether any key witnesses for the prosecution or the defence have given evidence, (f) the history, estimated length and complexity of the trial, (g) the availability of witnesses, (h) whether the decision to nominate a new presiding judge would be unfair to any of the parties to the trial. (3) If the senior judicial officer of the relevant court is unable to make a decision, the senior judicial officer may nominate another judge of the relevant court to make a decision in accordance with this section. (4) If a new presiding judge takes over the conduct of the proceedings, an order or ruling made by the former presiding judge is binding on the new presiding judge unless, in the opinion of the new presiding judge, it would not be in the interests of justice for that order or ruling to be binding. Note. Section 5F (Appeal against interlocutory judgment or order) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 does not extend to a decision made under this section. [s 164A insrt Act 54 of 2016 Sch 1.7[1], opn 25 Oct 2016]

DIVISION 7 — CERTAIN SUMMARY OFFENCES MAY BE DEALT WITH [Heading insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[76], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 165] Definitions and application 165 (1) In this Part: back up offence, in relation to an indictable offence, means an offence: (a) that is: (i) a summary offence, or (ii) an indictable offence that is capable of being dealt with summarily by the Local Court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5, and

192

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 172 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:47 bwpageid:: 192:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 166]

(b) all the elements of which are elements that are necessary to constitute the first indictable offence, and (c) that is to be prosecuted on the same facts as the first indictable offence. [def insrt Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[4], opn 31 July 1998; am Act 53 of 2000 Sch 3 item 1, opn 29 June 2000; Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

back up summary offence [def rep Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[4], opn 31 July 1998]

court means the Supreme Court or District Court. related offence, in relation to an indictable offence, means an offence: (a) that is: (i) a summary offence, or (ii) an indictable offence that is capable of being dealt with summarily by the Local Court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5, and (b) that arises from substantially the same circumstances as those from which the first indictable offence has arisen, but does not include a back up offence. [def insrt Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[4], opn 31 July 1998; am Act 53 of 2000 Sch 3 item 2, opn 29 June 2000; Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

related summary offence [def rep Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[4], opn 31 July 1998]

(2) This Part extends to proceedings commenced, but not concluded, before the commencement of this Part. [s 165 renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[21], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[77], opn 7 July 2003; am Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[78], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 166] Certification and transfer of back up and related offences 166 (1) On committal for trial or sentence of a person charged with an indictable offence: (a) the prosecutor must inform the Magistrate as to whether or not the person has been charged with any back up offence or related offence, and (b) if the person has been charged with any back up offence or related offence: (i) the prosecutor is to produce to the court a certificate specifying each back up offence and related offence with which the person has been charged, and (ii) the proceedings on each back up offence and related offence with which the person has been charged are to be transferred to the court in which the person has been committed to trial or sentence (along with the certificate). [subs (1) am Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[5], opn 31 July 1998; Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[2], opn 1 July 2002; Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[79], [80], opn 7 July 2003; Act 27 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 7[3], opn 18 Aug 2003]

(2) This section does not prevent the person referred to in subsection (1) being charged with any offence after committal. [subs (2) am Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[5], opn 31 July 1998]

(3) Proceedings on a back up offence or related offence that are laid after committal for trial or sentence of a person charged with an indictable offence are to be transferred to the court in which the person has been committed to trial or sentence. [subs (3) insrt Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[3], opn 1 July 2002; am Act 27 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 7[3], opn 18 Aug 2003] [s 166 insrt Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[6], opn 30 Mar 1998; am Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[5], opn

193

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 173 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:47 bwpageid:: 193:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 166

[2-s 166]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 166

31 July 1998; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[21], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[77], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 167] Manner of dealing with back up and related offences 167 (1) If, following a plea of guilty by an accused person to an indictable offence or at the conclusion of the trial of an accused person for an indictable offence, a court finds the accused person guilty of the offence, the court: (a) is (unless it considers it inappropriate in the circumstances to do so) to order that the charge in relation to each back up offence be dismissed, and (b) is to deal with any back up offence the charge for which is not dismissed under paragraph (a) and any related offence with which the accused person has been charged in accordance with this Part, unless to do so would not be in the interests of justice. [subs (1) subst Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[7], opn 30 Mar 1998; am Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[6], opn 31 July 1998; Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[4], [5], opn 1 July 2002; Act 27 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 7[4], opn 18 Aug 2003]

(1A) If at the conclusion of the trial of an accused person for an indictable offence, a court finds the accused person not guilty of the offence, the court is to deal with any back up offence or related offence with which the person has been charged in accordance with this Part, unless to do so would not be in the interests of justice. [subs (1A) insrt Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[7], opn 30 Mar 1998; am Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[6], opn 31 July 1998; Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[6], [7], opn 1 July 2002]

(2) If a court is dealing with an accused person for an indictable offence following the person’s committal for sentence, the court: (a) is (unless it considers it inappropriate in the circumstances to do so) to order that the charge in relation to each back up offence be dismissed, and (b) may deal with any back up offence the charge for which is not dismissed under paragraph (a) and any related offence with which the accused person has been charged in accordance with this Part, unless to do so would not be in the interests of justice. [subs (2) insrt Act 27 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 7[5], opn 18 Aug 2003]

(3) [subs (3) rep Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[8], opn 1 July 2002] (4) A court may deal with a back up offence or related offence with which an accused person has been charged even though it is not doing so in relation to a back up offence or related offence with which another accused person in the same proceedings is charged. [subs (4) am Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[10], [11], opn 30 Mar 1998; Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[6], opn 31 July 1998] [s 167 heading subst Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[6], opn 31 July 1998; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[21], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[77], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 167 Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 167.1]

[2-s 167.1] Scope of the section The section applies where the accused has been committed for trial or sentence, and after the accused has pleaded guilty or after trial in the District or Supreme Court. The section was amended as a consequence of the decision in R v MacDonald (2000) 110 A Crim R 238; BC200000178; [2000] NSWCCA 1. The court can deal with matters under the section notwithstanding that no certificate under s 166 has been handed up to the magistrate at committal proceedings and the prosecution is not bound by decisions made prior to

194

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 174 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 194:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 168.1]

committal regarding related or back-up summary offences: Director of Public Prosecutions v Sinton (2001) 51 NSWLR 659; 33 MVR 549; [2001] NSWCA 179; BC200103103; (2001) 8 Crim LN 42 [1294], where it was held that it was not an abuse of process for the prosecution to proceed on a back-up charge in the Local Court where no application had been made to the trial court to deal with the matter. The provisions apply in respect of “related offences” charged against a person under the age of 18 so that, where requested to do so, the court can deal with the offender according to law in respect of these offences and is not confined to the powers of the Children’s Court: DJ v R [2017] NSWCCA 319; BC201711037; 25(2) Crim LN [3947].

[2-s 168] Procedures for dealing with certain offences related to indictable offences 168 (1) The court is to deal with a back up offence or related offence under this Part without a jury and on the basis only of evidence given during the trial of the accused person for the relevant indictable offence in the same proceedings and additional evidence given under this section. [subs (1) am Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[12], opn 30 Mar 1998; Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[7], [8], opn 31 July 1998]

(2) The prosecutor or accused person may, with the leave of the court, call additional evidence in relation to the back up offence or related offence. [subs (2) am Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[12], opn 30 Mar 1998; Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[7], opn 31 July 1998]

(3) In sentencing or otherwise dealing with a person for a back up offence or related offence, the court has the same functions, and is subject to the same restrictions and procedures, as the Local Court. [subs (3) am Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[12], opn 30 Mar 1998; Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[7], opn 31 July 1998; Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[81], opn 7 July 2003; Act 94 of 2007 ss 3, 4 and Schs 1.28, 2, opn 6 July 2009]

(4) Rules of court may be made with respect to back up offences or related offences dealt with under this Part. [subs (4) am Act 85 of 1997 s 3 and Sch 1.4[13], opn 30 Mar 1998; Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[7], opn 31 July 1998] [s 168 heading subst Act 53 of 1998 s 7 and Sch 5[7], opn 31 July 1998; renum Act 94 of 1999 s 4 and Sch 2[21], opn 1 Jan 2000; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[77], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 168 Sentencing for back up offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 168.1]

[2-s 168.1] Sentencing for back up offence Section 168(3) requires the court to proceed to sentence as if the offender was being dealt with in the Local Court and the court is subject to the restrictions on sentence imposed in that court. The court therefore is restricted to the maximum sentence available for the offence or, if the offence is an indictable one capable of being dealt with summarily, the applicable penalty for such an offence: see at [2-s 267] and [2-s 268]. There is also a restriction upon the ability of the Local Court to impose cumulative sentences: see at [5-s 58]. There is a restriction upon the type of orders that the Local Court can impose on an offender who is not before the court: see at [5-s 25]. The sentence for a back up offence under this provision can be included in an aggregate sentence imposed in the District or Supreme Court under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act at [5-s 53A]: R v Price (2016) 75 MVR 89; [2016] NSWCCA 50; BC201602330; 23(4) Crim LN [3667].

195

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 175 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 195:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 168

[2-s 168.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 168

Where an aggregate sentence is imposed for an indictable offence as well as the s 166 offence there is no limitation on the court under s 58 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act in respect of the accumulation of the indicative sentence for the s 166 offence with the indictable offence: Alesbhi v R; Esbhi v R [2018] NSWCCA 30; BC201801504; 25(4) Crim LN [3967].

[2-s 169] Remission of certain offences related to indictable offences to Local Court 169 (1) A court that is dealing with a back up offence or related offence under this Part may, if it is in the interests of justice to do so, remit the matter to the Local Court. [subs (1) am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

(2) Any back up offence or related offence that is not dealt with by a court in accordance with this Part is to be remitted back to the Local Court. [subs (2) am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009] [s 169 subst Act 117 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 7[9], opn 1 July 2002; renum Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[77], opn 7 July 2003]

196

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 176 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 196:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

CHAPTER 4 — SUMMARY PROCEDURE [Ch 4 insrt Act 119 of 2001 s 3 and Sch 1[82], opn 7 July 2003]

PART 1 — PRELIMINARY

[2-s 170] Application 170 (1) This Chapter applies to or in respect of proceedings for summary offences, including proceedings for indictable offences that are being dealt with summarily. (2) Parts 2 and 3 apply to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings before the Local Court, (b) [repealed] (c) proceedings before an Industrial Magistrate, (d) [repealed] (e) any other proceedings prescribed by the regulations. [subs (2) am Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[3], opn 1 July 2008; Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 7, opn 8 Dec 2008; Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29 opn 7 Apr 2009; Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

(2A) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Part 4 applies to the following proceedings: proceedings before the Local Court, proceedings before the District Court, proceedings before the Supreme Court, proceedings before an Industrial Magistrate, [repealed] any other proceedings prescribed by the regulations.

[subs (2A) insrt Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 7, opn 8 Dec 2008; am Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29 opn 7 Apr 2009; Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

(3) Part 5 (except Division 2A) applies to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings before the Supreme Court, (b) [repealed] (c) proceedings before the Land and Environment Court, (c1) proceedings before the District Court, (d) proceedings before the Court of Coal Mines Regulation, (e) any other proceedings prescribed by the regulations. [subs (3) am Act 67 of 2011 Sch 4.6[1], opn 1 Jan 2012; Act 10 of 2012 Sch 1[1], opn 30 Apr 2012; Act 48 of 2016 Sch 2.13[4], opn 8 Dec 2016]

(4) Division 2A of Part 5 applies to the following proceedings: (a) proceedings before the Supreme Court, (b) proceedings before the Land and Environment Court. [subs (4) insrt Act 10 of 2012 Sch 1[2], opn 30 Apr 2012]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 170 Scope of Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 170.1]

[2-s 170.1] Scope of Chapter 4 Parts 2–4 of Ch 4 (ss 172–244) apply to proceedings for summary offences, including proceedings for indictable offences that are being dealt with summarily, primarily before the Local Court: s 170(2)(a). Where such proceedings were commenced before 7 July 2003, the proceedings were governed by the repealed Justices Act 1902 and certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, before that Act was amended by the

197

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 177 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 197:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 170.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 170

Criminal Procedure Amendment (Justices and Local Courts) Act 2001. See [2-s 2.5] and [2-s 2.10] for a discussion of savings and transitional provisions. The case management provisions in Div 2A in Pt 5 of Ch 4 (ss 247A–247Y) apply to criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Land and Environment Court in the summary jurisdictions of those courts. Divs 1 and 2 of Pt 5 (ss 245–247) and Div 3 in Pt 5 (ss 248–257) of Ch 4 apply to proceedings for summary offences which are determined by the courts specified in s 170(3). The District Court was inserted (s 170(3)(c1)) when that court was invested with summary jurisdiction to hear and determine certain summary offences under ss 31 and 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. See [21A-s 31], [21A-s 32] and [21A-s 229B].

[2-s 171] Definitions 171 In this Chapter: court means a court to which the relevant provision of this Chapter applies and includes (where applicable) an Industrial Magistrate. Judge includes a judge of the Supreme Court, the Land and Environment Court and the Court of Coal Mines Regulation and any other person of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. [def am Act 48 of 2016 Sch 2.13[5], opn 8 Dec 2016]

Magistrate includes an Industrial Magistrate and any other person of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. [def am Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[4], opn 1 July 2008; Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29 opn 7 Apr 2009]

registrar means: (a) in the case of proceedings before the Local Court, the relevant registrar of the Local Court, (b) [repealed] (c) in the case of proceedings before an Industrial Magistrate, the relevant registrar of the Local Court, (d) [repealed] (e) in the case of proceedings before any other court to which Parts 2–4 apply, the person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition. [def am Act 92 of 2007 s 6 and Sch 4.5[5], opn 1 July 2008; Act 107 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 29 opn 7 Apr 2009; Act 94 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1.28, opn 6 July 2009]

PART 2 — TRIAL PROCEDURES IN LOWER COURTS DIVISION 1 — COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

[2-s 172] Commencement of proceedings by court attendance notice 172 (1) Proceedings for an offence are to be commenced in a court by the issue and filing of a court attendance notice in accordance with this Division. (2) A court attendance notice may be issued in respect of a person if the person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence. (3) A court attendance notice may be issued in respect of any offence for which proceedings may be taken in this State, including an offence committed elsewhere than in this State.

198

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 178 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 198:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 172 Commencing summary proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filing of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Management of Local Court Summary Criminal Proceedings .

[2-s 174] Criminal Procedure

s 174

[2-s 172.1] [2-s 172.5] [2-s 172.10]

[2-s 172.1] Commencing summary proceedings Summary proceedings commence on the date on which a court attendance notice is filed at a Local Court, s 178(1). As to the requirements of a court attendance notice see at [2-s 175.1]. As to the jurisdiction of a court in the State to deal with offences committed outside the State see at Crimes Act Part 1A at [8-s 10A] and following. As to the commencement of a private prosecution, see s 174. Proceedings for a summary offence must be commenced not later than six months from when the offence was alleged to have been committed unless another limitation period is specified with respect to the offence, see [2-s 179]. The sixth-month limitation period does not apply to an indictable offence that is being dealt with summarily: s 179(2)(b). See [2-s 6] and [2-s 7] concerning summary offences and summary disposal of indictable offences. [2-s 172.5] Filing of documents See r 8.7 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9845] concerning filing of documents. Failure to comply with r 8.7(4) does not lead to invalidation of the commencement of proceedings: Fell v Chenhall [2018] NSWSC 1574; BC201809763. [2-s 172.10] Case Management of Local Court Summary Criminal Proceedings [2-s 134.20] and Local Court Practice Note Crim 1 at [28-15,205].

See

[2-s 173] Commencement of proceedings by police officer or public officer 173 If a police officer or public officer is authorised under section 14 of this Act or under any other law to commence proceedings for an offence against a person, the officer may commence the proceedings by issuing a court attendance notice and filing the notice in accordance with this Division. [s 173 am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 173 Proceedings by police officer or public officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 173.1]

[2-s 173.1] Proceedings by police officer or public officer A police officer or public officer, as defined at [2-s 3], may commence proceedings by issuing a court attendance notice and filing the notice. Unlike a private prosecution under s 174, the registrar has no power to refuse to sign a court attendance notice issued by a police officer or public officer. The scope of the section and its relationship with s 14 were considered in Sasterawan v Morris (2007) 69 NSWLR 547; [2007] NSWCCA 185; BC200705318; (2007) 14 Crim LN 96 [2251] where it was held that an information for an offence under s 178BB of the Crimes Act was validly commenced by an officer of the Ministry of Transport.

[2-s 174] Commencement of private prosecutions 174 (1) If a person other than a police officer or public officer is authorised under section 14 of this Act or under any other law to commence proceedings for an offence

199

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 179 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:48 bwpageid:: 199:: bwservice::0::

[2-s 174]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 174

against a person, the person may commence the proceedings by issuing a court attendance notice, signed by a registrar, and filing the notice in accordance with this Division. [subs (1) am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(2) A registrar must not sign a court attendance notice if: (a) the registrar is of the opinion that the notice does not disclose grounds for the proceedings, or (b) the registrar is of the opinion that the notice is not in the form required by or under this Act, or (c) the registrar is of the opinion that a ground for refusal set out in the rules applies to the notice. (3) If a registrar refuses to sign a court attendance notice proposed to be issued by any such person, the question of whether the court attendance notice is to be signed and issued is to be determined by a Magistrate on application by the person. [subs (3) am Act 4 of 2018 Sch 1.5[1], opn 21 Mar 2018]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 174 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Private prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2 s 174.0] Law Part Code

[2 s 174.0] [2-s 174.1]

The Law Part Code for s 17491) is 51531.

[2-s 174.1] Private prosecutions As to the requirements of a court attendance notice see at [2-s 175.1]. The registrar must refuse to sign a court attendance notice from a private prosecutor in circumstances set out in s 174(2). Where the registrar refuses to sign a notice under s 174(2), the question of whether the notice is to be signed and issued is to be determined by the court on application of the private prosecutor: s 174(3). See r 8.4 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9830] for grounds for a registrar to refuse to sign a court attendance notice. The operation of s 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (the equivalent of s 174 for indictable offences) and the now repealed r 57 of the Local Courts (Criminal and Applications Procedure) Rule 2003 (the predecessor to r 8.4 of the Local Court Rules 2009) was considered in Potier v Huber (2004) 148 A Crim R 399; [2004] NSWSC 720; BC200405049 where a challenge to a magistrate’s refusal to issue a court attendance notice was rejected. The relationship between this section, ss 173 and 14 was considered in Sasterawan v Morris [2007] NSWCA 185; BC200705318 (2007) 14 Crim LN 96 [2251].

[2-s 175] Form of court attendance notice 175 (1) A court attendance notice must be in writing and be in the form prescribed by the rules. (2) The rules may prescribe one or more forms of court attendance notice. (3) A court attendance notice must do the following: (a) describe the offence, (b) briefly state the particulars of the alleged offence, (c) contain the name of the prosecutor, (d) require the accused person to appear before the court at a specified date, time and place, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail,

200

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 180 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:49 bwpageid:: 200:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 175.5]

(e) state, unless a warrant is issued for the arrest of the person or the person is refused bail, that failure to appear may result in the arrest of the person or in the matter being dealt with in the absence of the person. [subs (3) am Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[5], opn 7 July 2003]

(4) The rules may prescribe additional matters to be included in court attendance notices. (5) A court attendance notice may describe an offence, act or other thing in a way that is sufficient under this Act for the purposes of an indictment or an averment in an indictment. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 175 Requirements of a court attendance notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 175.1] Duplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 175.5] [2-s 175.1] Requirements of a court attendance notice As to the description of an offence in a court attendance notice see at [2-s 11.1]. The offence may be described in the prescribed short form for the offence, see at [2-s 12]. See [2-s 16.5] concerning particulars in the charge and [2-s 16.15] concerning allegation of the time of the offence. The failure of a court attendance notice to fulfil the requirements of the section will not necessarily result in the notice being invalid see at [2-s 16.30]. See [8-s 417A] concerning proof of exceptions etc and the contents of a court attendance notice alleging such an offence. The form of court attendance notices to be used by police officers and public officers appears at [2-5600], [2-5610] and [2-5620]. See r 3.11 Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9415] concerning the approved form and contents of a court attendance notice commencing proceedings for a summary offence. For the approved form of court attendance notice see [2-11,5660]. In the course of the second reading speech for the Courts Legislation Miscellaneous Amendments Act 2002, which amended s 175(3)(b) and omitted s 176, Mr Moss, Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Attorney-General, said (NSW Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 23 October 2002): It was not intended that the Justices Act reform package change the law in relation to the contents of the initiating process. Therefore ss 50 and 175 will be amended to more closely reflect the language of the current law. Schedule 1.2[2] will amend ss 51 and 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act which provide that a court attendance notice may not relate to more than one offence. This restriction will cause significant problems for the police when they issue field court attendance notices. The benefits of being able to issue court attendance notices out in the field, without having to come to court to file the documents, would be lost if police had to issue multiple notices where a person was being charged with a number of offences. The bill will repeal those sections. The nature and extent of the requirement in s 175(3)(b) that a court attendance notice briefly state the particulars of the alleged offence were considered in Knaggs v DPP (2007) 170 A Crim R 366; [2007] NSWCA 83; BC200702392; (2007) 14 Crim LN 51 [2204]. The filing of a court attendance notice which includes the statement required by s 175(3)(e) is not an essential preliminary to the commencement of summary criminal proceedings, and the absence of such a statement does not render the proceedings invalid: Blight v Barber (2007) 164 IR 136; [2007] NSWSC 448; BC200703370. [2-s 175.5] Duplicity A court attendance notice is not necessarily invalid because it is duplicitous either on its face or having regard to the evidence led in support of it, see at [2-s 16.30]. As to duplicity generally see at [2-s 16.20].

201

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 181 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:49 bwpageid:: 201:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 175

[2-s 175.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 176

Court attendance notice to be for one offence only 176

[s 176 rep Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[2], opn 7 July 2003]

[2-s 177] Service of court attendance notices 177 (1) A court attendance notice issued by a police officer must be served by a police officer or prosecutor in accordance with the rules. [subs (1) am Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(2) A court attendance notice issued by a public officer must be served by a police officer, public officer or other person of a class prescribed by the rules, in accordance with the rules. (3) A copy of a court attendance notice issued by a person other than a police officer or a public officer must be served by a person of a class prescribed by the rules in accordance with the rules. (4) A copy of a court attendance notice must be filed in the registry of a court in accordance with the rules. [subs (4) subst Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(5) [subs (5) rep Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006] COMMENTARY ON SECTION 177 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service of court attendance notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2- s 177.0] Law Part Code

[2- s 177.0] [2-s 177.5]

The Law Part Code for s 177(4) is 51532.

[2-s 177.5] Service of court attendance notices See Pt 5 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9540] and following concerning service of notices. Providing the court attendance notice came into the possession of the defendant or to his or her notice, personal service has occurred, however it was undertaken: Young v Sprague [2015] NSWSC 1874; BC201512127 at [13].

[2-s 178] When proceedings commence 178 (1) All proceedings are taken to have commenced on the date on which a court attendance notice is filed in the registry of a relevant court in accordance with this Division. (2) [subs (2) rep Act 107 of 2006 s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006] (3) Nothing in this section affects any other Act or law under which proceedings are taken to have been commenced on another date. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 178 When proceedings commence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 178.1]

[2-s 178.1] When proceedings commence The repeal of ss 177(5) and 178(2) by the Crimes and Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2006 has the effect that service of a court attendance notice is no longer a condition of the valid commencement of proceedings; thus the decision in Sharman v DPP (2006) 161 A Crim R 1; [2006] NSWSC 135; BC200601072 no longer has application.

202

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 182 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:49 bwpageid:: 202:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 179.1]

[2-s 179] Time limit for commencement of summary proceedings 179 (1) Proceedings for a summary offence must be commenced not later than 6 months from when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply: (a) to an offence for which an Act or law specifies another period within which proceedings must be commenced, or (b) to an indictable offence that is being dealt with summarily, or (c) to an offence involving the death of a person that is or has been the subject of a coronial inquest, or (d) to a back up summary offence if the District Court determines an appeal against a conviction or finding of guilt by the Children’s Court or Local Court for the related indictable offence by setting aside the conviction or finding of guilt. [subs (2) am Act 107 of 2006; s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006; Act 87 of 2018 Sch 1 item 1.15[1], opn 28 Nov 2018]

(3) Proceedings for a summary offence that relate to the death of a person that is or has been the subject of a coronial inquest must be commenced: (a) not later than 6 months after the conclusion of the inquest, or (b) not later than 2 years from when the offence is alleged to have been committed, whichever occurs first. [subs (3) insrt Act 107 of 2006; s 3 and Sch 1, opn 29 Nov 2006]

(4) Proceedings for a back up summary offence must be commenced not later than 6 months after the District Court determines an appeal against the conviction or finding of guilt by the Children’s Court or Local Court for the related indictable offence by setting aside the conviction or finding of guilt. [subs (4) insrt Act 87 of 2018 Sch 1 item 1.15[2], opn 28 Nov 2018]

(5) In this section, a summary offence is a back up summary offence if a charge for the summary offence was laid against a person but was withdrawn or dismissed after the person was convicted or found guilty of an indictable offence (the related indictable offence) by the Children’s Court or Local Court on the basis of the same facts. [subs (5) insrt Act 87 of 2018 Sch 1 item 1.15[2], opn 28 Nov 2018]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 179 Time limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuing offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burden of proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 179.1] [2-s 179.5] [2-s 179.10]

[2-s 179.1] Time limitation Proceedings for a summary offence must be commenced not later than six months from when the offence was alleged to have been committed unless another limitation period is specified with respect to the particular offence: s 179(1) and (2)(a). The six-month limitation period does not apply to an indictable offence that is being dealt with summarily: s 179(2)(b). As to the appropriate characterisation of limitation provisions in criminal proceedings, see WorkCover Authority of NSW (Inspector Keenan) v Lucon (Aust) Pty Ltd (2002) 112 IR 332; NSWIRComm 68 at [90]ff. It has been held that the effect of a section such as repealed s 56 Justices Act 1902 was not to deprive the court of jurisdiction: Parissienne Basket Shoes v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369 at 392; [1938] ALR 119; BC3800054; Adams v Chas S Watson Pty Ltd (1938) 60 CLR 545 at 553; [1938] ALR 365; BC3800025.

203

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 183 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:49 bwpageid:: 203:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 179

[2-s 179.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 179

Section 201 of the Road Transport Act 2013 at [13-s 201] provides that proceedings for an operator onus offence (as defined in that section) may be commenced within 1 year after the date of the alleged commission of the offence. [2-s 179.5] Continuing offences The question whether an offence is a continuing offence or one which is committed once and for all at a specified time depends upon consideration of the language of the Act in question. The test whether an offence is to be treated in law as continuous is whether its gravamen is to be found in something which the offender can, at will, discontinue: Sloggett v Adams (1953) 70 WN (NSW) 206 at 208; Environment Protection Authority v Alkem Drums Pty Ltd (2000) LGERA 130; 121 A Crim R 152; [2000] NSWCCA 416; BC200008462. Where a notice sets a time for the doing of the Act which is required to be done, the offence is committed once and for all if that Act is not done within the time set. Where the notice does not expressly specify a time, a reasonable time would be implied and in such case the offence would be committed once and for all if, at the expiration of a reasonable time, the work had not been done: Sloggett, above, at 208; Alkem Drums, above, at [8]–[11]. See, generally, Alkem Drums, above, for an examination of authorities concerning continuing offences, including Sloggett, above; Ex parte Schaefer; Re Field (1943) 60 WN (NSW) 99; Leydon v Forrest (1980) 23 SASR 364; J Robins and Sons Ltd v Maloney (No 2) [1935] AR (NSW) 155; (1935) IR 155; Ganke v Corporate Affairs Commission (1990) 19 NSWLR 449; 1 ACSR 764. [2-s 179.10] Burden of proof The general burden of proving that the information is in time lies on the prosecutor. However, where a further bar may be set up within the original period limited if new and additional facts appear the burden of proving the latter facts lies on the defendant: Morgan v Babcock and Wilcox Ltd (1929) 43 CLR 163 at 174–5, 179–80; [1929] ALR 313; BC2900014.

[2-s 180] Relationship to other law or practice 180 (1) Nothing in this Part affects any law or practice relating to indictments presented or filed in the Supreme Court or the District Court by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2) If an Act or a statutory rule provides for proceedings for an offence which may be taken in a court to be commenced otherwise than by issuing a court attendance notice, the proceedings may be commenced in accordance with this Act. (3) Nothing in this Part affects the operation of the provisions of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 relating to the commencement of proceedings under that Act. [subs (3) am Act 114 of 2008 s 3 and Sch 2.8[1]–[2], opn 10 Dec 2008]

[2-s 181] Attendance of accused person at proceedings 181 (1) A person who issues a court attendance notice may, at any time after the notice is issued and before the date on which the accused person is required to first attend at the court for the hearing of proceedings, apply for a warrant to arrest the accused person. (2) An authorised officer may, when a court attendance notice is issued by the registrar, or filed in the court, or at any time after then and before the matter is first before a court, issue a warrant to arrest the accused person if the authorised officer is satisfied there are substantial reasons to do so and that it is in the interests of justice to do so.

204

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 184 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:50 bwpageid:: 204:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 182]

(3) The rules may make provision for or with respect to matters that may be taken into account by an authorised officer in determining whether to issue a warrant under this section. (3A) If an accused person is not present at the day, time and place set down for the hearing of proceedings (including any day to which proceedings are adjourned), or absconds from the proceedings, the Magistrate may issue a warrant to arrest the accused person if the Magistrate is satisfied there are substantial reasons to do so and that it is in the interests of justice to do so. [subs (3A) insrt Act 130 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 6[2], opn 7 July 2003]

(4) A Magistrate or an authorised officer before whom an accused person is brought on arrest on a warrant issued under this section may, if bail is not dispensed with or granted, order the issue of a warrant: (a) committing the accused person to a correctional centre or other place of security, and (b) ordering the accused person to be brought before a court at the date, time and place specified in the order. (5) The Magistrate or authorised officer must give notice of the date, time and place set to the prosecutor. Part 4 of this Chapter sets out procedures for arrest warrants and warrants of commitment generally. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 181 Law Part Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 181.0] The Law The Law The Law

[2-s 181.0]

Law Part Codes The Law Part Code for s 181(1) is 51535. Part Code for s 181(2) is 51536. Part Code for s 181(3A) is 59958. Part Code for s 181(4)(a) is 51537.

DIVISION 2 — PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES

[2-s 182] Written pleas 182 (1) An accused person served with a court attendance notice may lodge with the registrar a notice in writing that the accused person will plead guilty or not guilty to the offence or offences the subject of the court attendance notice concerned. (2) The notice is to be in the form prescribed by the rules and, in the case of a guilty plea, may be accompanied by additional written material containing matters in mitigation of the offence. (2A) Despite subsection (2), a notice in writing under this section is not required to be in the form prescribed by the rules if the written notice is accepted by the Local Court. [subs (2A) insrt Act 44 of 2017 Sch 1.9[3], opn 25 Sep 2017]

(3) An accused person who lodges a notice under this section with the registrar not later than 7 days before the date on which the person is required to first attend before the Local Court: (a) is not required to attend the Court on that date, and (b) is taken to have attended the Court on that date. [subs (3) subst Act 4 of 2009 Sch 2.2, opn 30 Mar 2009; am Act 94 of 2007 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 6 July 2009]

205

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 185 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:50 bwpageid:: 205:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 182

[2-s 182]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 182

(4) This section does not apply to an accused person who has been granted or refused bail or in relation to whom bail has been dispensed with. [subs (4) insrt Act 40 of 2003 s 3 and Sch 1.10[4], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 182 Written pleas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 182.1]

[2-s 182.1] Written pleas See Written notice of pleading at [2-5710] for the form prescribed for the purpose of s 182(2). The obligation to give reasons on sentence extends to the imposition of penalty at an ex parte sentencing hearing where the defendant has entered a written plea of guilt under s 182: Roylance v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) [2018] NSWSC 933; BC201805860. This decision was referred to and followed in Hayes v DPP (NSW) [2019] NSWSC 378; BC201902606; 26(5) Crim LN [4130] where it was emphasised that a magistrate must consider whether to record a conviction or not, even where the matter is being dealt with ex parte, and must give reasons for that decision.

[2-s 183] Brief of evidence to be served on accused person where not guilty plea 183 (1) If an accused person pleads not guilty to an offence, the prosecutor must, subject to section 187, serve or cause to be served on the accused person a copy of the brief of evidence relating to the offence. [subs (1) am Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[6], opn 7 July 2003]

(2) The brief of evidence is, unless the regulations otherwise provide, to consist of documents regarding the evidence that the prosecutor intends to adduce in order to prove the commission of the offence and is to include: (a) written statements taken from the persons the prosecutor intends to call to give evidence in proceedings for the offence, and (b) copies of any document or any other thing, identified in such a written statement as a proposed exhibit. [subs (2) am Act 34 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[1], opn 14 Nov 2007]

(3) The copy of the brief of evidence is to be served at least 14 days before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution. (4) The Magistrate may set a later date for service with the consent of the accused person or if of the opinion that the circumstances of the case require it. [s 183 am Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[6], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 183 Brief of evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 183.1] [2-s 183.5]

[2-s 183.1] Brief of evidence Sections 183(2) and 186 provide for the contents of the brief of evidence. The brief of evidence does not include a copy of a search warrant which was not part of the proof of the offence or which was not to be tendered as evidence in the prosecution’s case: Director of Public Prosecutions v Sounthorn [1999] NSWSC 786; BC9904395; (1999) 6 Crim LN 66 [1042]. Where the prosecution seeks to rely upon conversations recorded pursuant to warrants under the Listening Devices Act 1984 or the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

206

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 186 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:50 bwpageid:: 206:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 185]

(Cth) to prove the commission of an offence, copies of the warrants should be included in the brief of evidence: Director of Public Prosecutions v Webb (2001) 52 NSWLR 341; 164 FLR 394; [2001] NSWCA 307; BC200105723. [2-s 183.5] Scope of the section The operation of repealed s 66B Justices Act 1902, which was in broadly similar terms to s 183, was considered by the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647; [2000] NSWCA 103; BC200002228; (2000) 7 Crim LN 25 [1136]. Mason P considered the interaction of repealed ss 66B, 66E, 66F and 66G and that part of his judgment is extensively set out at (2000) 7 Crim LN 25–7 and see the annotations for the following sections in this Part. Modifying the words of Mason P at [24] to take into account the words of the new sections, the following principles may be stated: (a) Unless there is an order to the contrary in accordance with s 187, s 183 imposes a duty on the prosecutor that is triggered by a plea of not guilty to an offence. That duty is to serve or cause to be served on the accused person a copy of the “brief of evidence” relating to that offence. (b) The time for performance of the duty is “at least 14 days before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution” (s 183(3)) unless the accused person consents to a later date for service or the magistrate is of the opinion that the circumstances of the case require it: s 183(4). It was also held in West that the words “14 days before the hearing of the evidence for the prosecution” is not a reference to the first time the prosecution evidence is called but to the hearing date fixed by the court and, if on the day the hearing is ready to commence, there has been a breach of the section then the prosecution must seek dispensation under s 188(2) or seek an adjournment under s 187(4). The magistrate is then to take into account whether there is any prejudice actually faced by the accused person as a result of the failure to serve the brief in time. The failure of the prosecutor to serve the brief in time does not itself justify the magistrate dismissing the charge without considering all of the circumstances and where the only reasonable course was to grant the adjournment sought by the prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Fungavaka [2010] NSWSC 917; BC201006159; 17(9) Crim LN 136 [2790].

[2-s 184] Exhibits 184 (1) Despite section 183, the prosecutor is not required to include a copy of a proposed exhibit identified in the brief of evidence if it is impossible or impractical to copy the exhibit. (2) However, in that case the prosecutor is: (a) to serve on the accused person a notice specifying a reasonable time and place at which the proposed exhibit may be inspected, and (b) to allow the accused person a reasonable opportunity to inspect each proposed exhibit referred to in the notice.

[2-s 185] Recording of interviews with vulnerable persons 185 (1) If the prosecutor intends to call a vulnerable person to give evidence in proceedings, the brief of evidence may include a transcript of a recording made by an investigating official of an interview with the vulnerable person, during which the vulnerable person was questioned by the investigating official in connection with the investigation of the commission or possible commission of the offence (as referred to in section 306R). (2) A copy of the transcript of the recording must be certified by an investigating official as an accurate transcript of the recording and served on the accused person in accordance with section 183.

207

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 187 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:51 bwpageid:: 207:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 185

[2-s 185]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 185

(3) A brief of evidence that includes a transcript of a recording of an interview with a vulnerable person is not required also to include a written statement from the vulnerable person concerned. (4) The transcript of the recording is taken, for the purposes of this Division, to be a written statement taken from the vulnerable person. Accordingly, any document or other thing identified in the transcript as a proposed exhibit forms part of the brief of evidence. (5) Nothing in this Division requires the prosecutor to serve on the accused person a copy of the actual recording made by an investigating official of an interview with the vulnerable person. (6) This section does not affect section 306V(2). (7) In this section: investigating official has the same meaning as it has in Part 6 of Chapter 6. vulnerable person [def rep Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[9], opn 1 June 2015]

Note. Part 6 of Chapter 6 allows vulnerable persons (children and cognitively impaired persons) to give evidence of a previous representation in the form of a recording made by an investigating official of an interview with the vulnerable person. Section 306V(2) (which is contained in that Part) provides that such evidence is not to be admitted unless the accused person and his or her Australian legal practitioner have been given a reasonable opportunity to listen to or view the recording. [s 185 subst Act 6 of 2007 s 3 and Sch 1[3], opn 12 Oct 2007; am Act 74 of 2008 s 4 and Sch 2, opn 1 Dec 2008; Act 56 of 2009 Sch 3.3, opn 17 July 2009]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 185 Operation of section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 185.1]

[2-s 185.1] Operation of section Section 185 applies to proceedings commenced on or after 12 October 2007: cl 55 at [2-Sch 2].

[2-s 185A] Recordings of interviews with domestic violence complainants 185A (1) If the prosecutor intends to call a domestic violence complainant to give evidence in proceedings for a domestic violence offence, the brief of evidence may include a recorded statement relating to the offence. (2) For the purpose of the service of a recorded statement included in a brief of evidence, the requirements of Division 3 of Part 4B of Chapter 6 in relation to service of, and access to, a recorded statement must be complied with. (3) This Division (other than section 185(1)) applies to a recorded statement included in a brief of evidence and the person whose representation is recorded in the recorded statement in the same way as it applies to a written statement included under this Division and the person who made the written statement. (4) A brief of evidence that includes a recorded statement is not required also to include a written statement from the domestic violence complainant. (5) This section does not affect section 289I(2). [s 185A insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[10], opn 1 June 2015]

208

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 188 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:51 bwpageid:: 208:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 185A Recorded statements of domestic violence complainants . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 187.1]

[2-s 185A.1]

[2-s 185A.1] Recorded statements of domestic violence complainants Section 185A provides for the service of a recorded statement of a domestic violence complainant for the purpose of a summary hearing. “Domestic violence complainant” is defined in s 3(1) at [2-s 3]. “Domestic violence offence” is defined in s 3(1) at [2-s 3] and s 11 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 at [8-5240]. “Recorded statement” is defined in s 3(1) and s 289D at [2-s 3] and [2-s 289D] respectively.

[2-s 186] Form of copy of brief of evidence 186 (1) The copy of the brief of evidence is to comply with any requirement applicable to it prescribed by the rules. (2) A written statement contained in the brief of evidence is to comply with this Act and any requirement applicable to it prescribed by the rules. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 186 Form of brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 186.1]

[2-s 186.1] Form of brief See rr 3.12–3.13 of the Local Court Rules 2009 at [2-9420]–[2-9425] concerning the form and content of statements in the brief.

[2-s 187] When brief of evidence need not be served 187 (1) The court may order that all or part of the copy of the brief of evidence need not be served if it is satisfied: (a) that there are compelling reasons for not requiring service, or (b) that it could not reasonably be served on the accused person. (2) The court may make an order under this section on its own initiative or on the application of any party. (3) An order may be made subject to any conditions that the court thinks fit. (4) Without limiting any other power to adjourn proceedings, the court may grant one or more adjournments, if it appears to it to be just and reasonable to do so, if the copy of the brief of evidence is not served in accordance with this Division. For that purpose, the court may extend the time for service of the brief of evidence. (5) A prosecutor is not required to serve a brief of evidence in proceedings for an offence of a kind, or proceedings of a kind, prescribed by the regulations. [subs (5) insrt Act 99 of 2002 s 3 and Sch 1.2[7], opn 7 July 2003]

COMMENTARY ON SECTION 187 Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 187(4) adjournment and extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offences where brief of evidence not required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 187.1] [2-s 187.5] [2-s 187.10]

[2-s 187.1] Scope of the section Section 187 combines repealed ss 66E and 66G Justices Act 1902 but provides in s 187(4) that the court “may grant” one or more adjournments, a change from s 66G which said that Justices “are to grant” adjournments as appear just and reasonable. The operation of repealed s 66E was considered by the Court of Appeal in Director of Public

209

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 189 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:51 bwpageid:: 209:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 187

[2-s 187.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 187

Prosecutions v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647; [2000] NSWCA 103; BC200002228; (2000) 7 Crim LN 25 [1136]. Modifying the words of Mason P at [24] to take into account the words of the new sections, the following principles may be stated: ... (d) Section 187 gives the magistrate a discretion to order that all or part of the copy

of the brief of evidence need not be served if the magistrate is satisfied that there are compelling reasons for not requiring service or that the brief could not reasonably be served on the accused person. Such order may be made subject to any conditions that the court thinks fit: s 187(3). (e) Section 187 is designed to operate prospectively, ie before the date on which the brief is otherwise required to be served. However, it is not confined to that situation. For example, it may only emerge that the brief cannot reasonably be served on the accused person after attempts are made to do so. There is nothing in the language or context that would deprive the court of the power to make this type of dispensing order after the time for service had elapsed. [2-s 187.5] Section 187(4) adjournment and extension The operation of repealed s 66G (the predecessor to s 187(4)) was considered by the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647; [2000] NSWCA 103; BC200002228 (2000) 7 Crim LN 25 [1136]. Modifying the words of Mason P at [24] to take into account the words of the new sections, the following principles may be stated: ... (k) Section 187(4) empowers magistrates to grant such adjournments as appear to

be just and reasonable if the copy of the brief of evidence is not served in accordance with the Division, with a related discretion to extend the time for service of the brief of evidence. No case for the exercise of that discretion would arise if non-compliance had already been dispensed with in relation to that evidence, in accordance with s 188(2). But, absent dispensation in relation to non-complying evidence, s 187(4) discloses a legislative intention that the refusal to admit that evidence will not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution. Rather, the magistrate is required to grant such adjournments as appear to be just and reasonable with a view to getting the prosecution on the rails. (m) It is possible to conceive of situations where it would not be just or reasonable to grant to a non-complying prosecutor an adjournment and extension of time pursuant to s 187(4). However, the general thrust of s 187(4) is to ensure that the case is able to proceed, after a suitable adjournment to overcome the prejudice flowing from non-compliance . . . There is a legitimate public interest in the conviction of those guilty of crime so long as the fairness of the trial is not compromised . . . (n) Section 187(4) deals with a special class of adjournments, as its opening words recognise. Not every adjournment will be triggered by problems arising out of late service of the brief of evidence. Accordingly, not every adjournment will trigger an order extending the time for hearing the matter. (o) If an order is made pursuant to s 187(4) extending time for service of the brief of evidence, the effect will be that the defaulting prosecutor goes back to taws. The scheme of the Division will be set in motion again, with reference to the new hearing time that is fixed, with all of the sanctions and safeguards thereby stemming from ss 183, 187 and 188. There would be little reason to grant any further indulgence to a prosecutor should further default occur.

210

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 190 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:52 bwpageid:: 210:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 188.1]

(p) The accused person has a significant measure of control over the situation

through the right conferred by s 188(2). If an accused person requires dispensation from s 188(1) (perhaps on terms) this would prevent the prosecutor from seeking to take advantage of his or her own default. It has been held that a magistrate erred in refusing an adjournment sought by the prosecutor to serve a statement where the adjournment was not opposed by the defence and the result of the refusal meant that the charge was dismissed: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Chaouk [2010] NSWSC 1418; BC201009315; 18(2) Crim LN [2852]. [2-s 187.10] Offences where brief of evidence not required With the exception of the offences set out in Sch 3 of the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2010 at [2-6000], proceedings for offences for which a penalty notice may be issued are prescribed for the purposes of s 187(5) as proceedings of a kind in which a prosecutor is not required to serve a brief of evidence: cl 24 Criminal Procedure Regulation 2017 at [2-5200]. See s 336 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 at [2-s 336] for penalty notice offences.

[2-s 188] Evidence not to be admitted 188 (1) The court must refuse to admit evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecutor in respect of an offence if, in relation to that evidence, this Division or any rules made under this Division have not been complied with by the prosecutor. (2) The court may, and on the application of or with the consent of the accused person must, dispense with the requirements of subsection (1) on such terms and conditions as appear just and reasonable. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 188 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of the section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 188.0] Law Part Code

[2-s 188.0] [2-s 188.1]

The Law Part Code for s 188(2) is 51538.

[2-s 188.1] Scope of the section The operation of repealed s 66F Justices Act 1902 (the predecessor of s 188) was considered by the Court of Appeal in Director of Public Prosecutions v West (2000) 48 NSWLR 647; [2000] NSWCA 103; BC200002228; (2000) 7 Crim LN 25 [1136]. Modifying the words of Mason P at [24] to take into account the words of the new sections, the following principles may be stated: ... (g) Section 188(1) imposes a duty upon magistrates (“must refuse”). They must

refuse to admit evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecutor in respect of an offence if, in relation to that evidence, the Division has not been complied with by the prosecutor. The prohibition will apply to the whole of the evidence if the brief of evidence was not served in due time. Equally, it will apply to an item of evidence not contained in a brief otherwise duly served. In either case, unless the requirements of s 188(1) are dispensed with qua that evidence, the magistrate is required to refuse to admit that evidence. (h) However, the magistrate may, and on the application of or with the consent of, the accused person must, dispense with the requirements of s 188(1) on such terms and conditions as appear just and reasonable: s 188(2). The judicial discretion is a broad one, but it is to be exercised having regard to the public interest in enabling a prosecution to be heard and determined so long as unfairness or injustice does not occur . . .

211

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 191 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:52 bwpageid:: 211:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 188

[2-s 188.1]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 188

(i) The barrier created by s 188(1) need not remain permanently lowered. For

example, it would be lifted if and when dispensation ensued in accordance with s 188(2) or an order were made in accordance with s 187(4). (j) Nor does refusal to admit evidence necessarily spell the dismissal of the prosecution. There may be sufficient evidence contained within a complying brief of evidence and/or in a brief of evidence in respect of which dispensation has been granted under s 188(2). Or compliance with the Division may occur following a s 187(4) adjournment and order extending the time for service. The proper construction and operation of s 188 were considered in Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Lazzam [2016] NSWSC 145; BC201601079.

[2-s 189] False statements or representations 189 (1) A person who made a written statement tendered in evidence in proceedings is guilty of an offence if the statement contains any matter that, at the time the statement was made, the person knew to be false, or did not believe to be true, in any material respect. Maximum penalty: (a) If the offence is dealt with summarily, 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. (b) If the offence is dealt with on indictment, 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. (1A) A person who made a representation given in evidence in proceedings in the form of a recorded statement is guilty of an offence if the representation contains any matter that, at the time the representation was made, the person knew to be false, or did not believe to be true, in any material respect. Maximum penalty: (a) If the offence is dealt with summarily, 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. (b) If the offence is dealt with on indictment, 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. [subs (1A) insrt Act 83 of 2014 Sch 1[11], opn 1 June 2015]

(2) Chapter 5 (which relates to the summary disposal of certain indictable offences unless an election is made to proceed on indictment) applies to and in respect of an offence under this section. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 189 Law Part Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [2-s 189.0] Law Part Code

[2-s 189.0]

The Law Part Code for s 189(1) is 51539.

DIVISION 3 — HEARINGS

[2-s 190] Time for hearing 190 (1) On the first return date for a court attendance notice in any summary proceedings, or at such later time as the court determines, the court must set the date, time and place for hearing and determining the matter.

212

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 192 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:52 bwpageid:: 212:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 190.5]

(2) The court must notify the accused person of the date, time and place, if the accused person is not present. (3) However, if the accused person is not present at the first return date or at any subsequent mention of the proceedings and has not lodged a written plea of not guilty in accordance with section 182, the court may proceed to hear and determine the matter on the first or a subsequent day on which the matter is listed for mention at its discretion. [subs (3) am Act 59 of 2014 Sch 1 item 1.6[1], [2], opn 23 Oct 2014]

(4) The court may not proceed to hear and determine the matter unless it is satisfied that the accused person had reasonable notice of the first return date or the mention date. [subs (4) insrt Act 59 of 2014 Sch 1 item 1.6[3], opn 23 Oct 2014]

Note. The powers of a court to adjourn proceedings generally are set out in section 40. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 190 Adjournments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accused person not present on first return date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 190.1] [2-s 190.5] [2-s 190.10]

[2-s 190.1] Adjournments Section 190(1) requires the court, on the first return date, to set the date, time and place for hearing and determining the matter. Given this, the types of considerations which arose in Macrae v Redmond (1987) 8 Petty SR 3534, where the prosecutor was refused an adjournment of a summons matter on the first return date, ought not arise. Where a magistrate determines under s 193(2) not to accept the accused person’s guilty plea on the first return date, a plea of not guilty ought be entered and the court must set the date, time and place for hearing and determination of the matter: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157; [2008] NSWSC 953; BC200808086 at [46], [55]; (2008) 15 Crim LN 115 [2445]. See s 40 at [2-s 40] for the general power to adjourn criminal proceedings. While the power to further adjourn a matter is discretionary, it must not be exercised so as to work a manifest injustice on one party, eg to deprive a party of a hearing, unless there is no other way to do substantial justice between the parties: Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645; Walker v Walker [1967] 1 All ER 412; [1967] 1 WLR 327; Watson v Watson (1970) 70 SR 203. An appellate court can control the exercise of the power in such cases: Walker v Walker, above; Re M (an infant) [1968] 1 WLR 1897; Bennett v Marr (1978) 4 Petty SR 1824. The relevant duty of the court is to ensure that a party (whether prosecutor or accused person) is given a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157; [2008] NSWSC 953; BC200808086 at [52]–[57]; (2008) 15 Crim LN 115 [2445]. An accused person should be given a reasonable chance to present his case which necessarily includes a reasonable opportunity to prepare that case before being called upon to present it: R v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286; BC9505041. In the exercise of discretion to grant a contested application for an adjournment, it is not proper for the court to take into account as a controlling factor the prospect of a substantive legislative amendment which would accrue to the benefit of one party: Meggitt Overseas Ltd v Grdovic (1998) 43 NSWLR 527; BC9802307. [2-s 190.5] Accused person not present on first return date Where the accused person is not present at the first return date and has not lodged a written plea of not guilty under s 182, the court may proceed to hear the matter on that day at its discretion: s 190(3). See [2-s 199] and [2-s 200] for the material which the court may consider when a matter is determined in the absence of the accused person. The court must not proceed to hear and determine the matter unless it is satisfied that the accused person had reasonable notice of the first return date: s 196(3).

213

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 193 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:52 bwpageid:: 213:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 190

[2-s 190.5]

s 190

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

In the case of a matter heard in the absence of the accused person, the court may adjourn the proceedings to enable the accused person to appear or be brought before the court for sentencing: s 202(3) at [2-s 202]. [2-s 190.10] Practice Note See Local Court Practice Note Crim 1 at [28-15,205] for procedures for case management of criminal proceedings in the Local Court.

[2-s 191] Proceedings to be open to public 191 (1) Summary proceedings before a court are to be heard in open court. (2) This section is subject to the provisions of any other Act or law. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 191 Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders . . . . . . . Closed court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Media access to court documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 191.1] [2-s 191.5] [2-s 191.10]

[2-s 191.1] Open court, suppression orders and non-publication orders See Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 at [29-9001] and following, and commentary at [2-s 56.1]. [2-s 191.5] Closed court

See [2-s 56.5].

[2-s 191.10] Media access to court documents See [2-s 314] for procedures concerning media access to certain court documents relating to criminal proceedings.

[2-s 192] Procedures where both parties present 192 (1) If both the accused person and the prosecutor are present at the day, time and place set for the hearing and determination of proceedings for an offence (including a day to which the hearing has been adjourned) the court must proceed to hear and determine the matter. (2) The court must state the substance of the offence to the accused person and ask the accused person if the accused person pleads guilty or not guilty. (3) Instead of hearing and determining the matter, the court may, if it thinks that the matter should not proceed on the specified day, adjourn the hearing to another day for mention or hearing. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 192 Procedure where both parties present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abuse of process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practice Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 192.1] [2-s 192.5] [2-s 192.10]

[2-s 192.1] Procedure where both parties present Where both parties are present at the day, time and place set for the hearing and determination of proceedings, the following procedures apply: (a) the court must proceed to hear and determine the matter (s 192(1)) unless the court thinks that the matter should not proceed on the specified day and ought be adjourned for mention or hearing (s 192(3)) — as to adjournments, see [2-s 40] and [2-s 190.1]; (b) a court may hear and determine together proceedings related to two or more offences or two or more accused persons in certain circumstances: s 29 at [2-s 29];

214

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 194 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:53 bwpageid:: 214:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 192.1]

(c) if the hearing proceeds, the court must state the substance of the offence to the accused person and ask the person if he or she pleads guilty or not guilty: s 192(2); (d) if the accused person pleads guilty, and the court accepts the plea, and the person does not show sufficient cause why he or she should not be convicted or not have an order made against him or her, the court must convict the accused person or make the order accordingly: s 193(1); (e) if the court does not accept the accused person’s guilty plea, the court must proceed to hear and determine the matter as if the person had pleaded not guilty: ss 193(2), 194(1); (f) the court must hear the prosecutor and the prosecution witnesses and other evidence and must hear the accused person and the defence witness and other evidence: s 194(2); (g) the prosecution case, defence case and prosecution case in reply (if any) then proceeds: s 195; (h) the court must determine summary proceedings after hearing the accused person, prosecutor, witnesses and evidence in accordance with the Act: s 202(1); (i) the court may determine the matter by convicting the accused person or by making an order as to the accused person, or by dismissing the matter: s 202(2); (j) a court may adjourn summary proceedings before or at any stage of proceedings to enable the matter to be the subject of a mediation session under the Community Justices Centres Act 1983: s 203; (k) before a finding of guilt of an accused person in respect of certain summary offences and indictable offences that may be dealt with summarily, the court may adjourn proceedings to permit assessment for participation in an intervention program: s 350 at [2-s 350]; (l) a court must make a record of any conviction or order made against any accused person in summary proceedings: s 204(1); (m) a court is to make an order of dismissal and provide a copy of a certificate of dismissal in certain circumstances: s 205; (n) an accused person may, at any time after conviction or an order has been made against the person and before the summary proceedings are finally disposed of, apply to the court to change the person’s plea from guilty to not guilty and to have the conviction or order set aside: s 207(1); (o) where application under s 207(1) is made, the court may set aside the conviction or order and proceed to determine the matter on the basis of a plea of not guilty: s 207(2); (p) if the matter is withdrawn by the prosecutor, the matter is taken to be dismissed and the accused person is taken to be discharged in relation to the offences concerned: s 208; (q) a court may, in any summary proceedings, on the application of a party, order the other party to pay costs, in certain circumstances, if the matter is adjourned: s 216; (r) at the end of summary proceedings, a court may order costs against the prosecutor, in certain circumstances, if the matter is dismissed or withdrawn: ss 213–14; (s) at the end of summary proceedings, a court may order costs against the accused person if he or she is convicted or an order is made against the person: s 215. A valid plea can be entered by an accused person’s legal representative in the absence of the accused and it is unnecessary in such a case that the charge be read out in the court under s 192(2) in light of the definition of “accused person” in s 3 of the Act: Collier v DPP (NSW) [2011] NSWCA 202; BC20110544; 18(8) Crim LN [2945]. It was held that the stating of the charge was not a necessary pre-condition to a valid plea although in the case of an unrepresented accused the section should be followed in order to ensure that the plea of guilty is an unequivocal acceptance of guilt of the offence charged. Where the accused person does not attend but is legally represented on the hearing day, the effect of ss 3 and 36 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 is that the accused person is before the court so that s 196 of the Act does not apply, and the court should proceed to hear and determine the matter under s 192: McKellar v DPP (2014) 240 A Crim R 285; [2014] NSWSC 459; BC201402842 at [34].

215

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 195 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:53 bwpageid:: 215:: bwservice::0::

Criminal Procedure

s 192

[2-s 192.5]

ANNOTATED CRIMINAL LEGISLATION NSW 2019/2020

s 192

[2-s 192.5] Abuse of process See [2-s 19.5] and the principles set out below for circumstances in which a trial court, including the Local Court, might stay criminal proceedings as an abuse of process. A magistrate has implied power to stay proceedings for a summary offence on the basis that the proceedings are an abuse of process: Director of Public Prosecutions v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129; 102 A Crim R 180; BC9802628; 5 Crim LN 39 [854]. The principles to be applied in an application to stay a prosecution were considered in Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; 87 ALR 577; 41 A Crim R 307; BC8902707. The power of stay only arises in the event of a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the trial of such a nature that nothing that a trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences: Jago, above, at CLR 34; ALR 584. It is of fundamental importance to the processes of justice that courts should exercise their jurisdiction: Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 at 519; 107 ALR 635 at 640; BC9202694; Jago, above, at CLR 47; ALR 593. The mere absence of evidence that has become unavailable otherwise than by the fault of the defendant is not itself generally sufficient to justify a stay of proceedings: x (NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, 11 June 1992, unreported); R v Goldburg (NSWCCA, 23 February 1993, unreported, BC9302038); R v Tolmie (NSWCCA, Hunt CJ, McInerney and Bruce JJ, 60503/94, 7 December 1994, unreported). Where a stay is sought because of loss or destruction of evidence, the ultimate issue is whether the proceedings can no longer serve the purpose for which the statute, the Justices Act (now the Criminal Procedure Act), was provided, that is, whether the magistrate will be able to hear and determine the proceedings by a fair trial. If not, it will be one of those exceptional cases in which a stay should be granted. The absence of documentation needs to be considered in the context of the available powers under the Evidence Act 1995: Stanley v Farlow (2001) 161 FLR 250; [2001] NSWSC 376; BC200102209 at [47]–[53]. The Supreme Court has inherent power to stay the prosecution of a summary offence where the proceedings are an abuse of process by reason of delay or otherwise: Whitten v Hall (1993) 29 NSWLR 680. [2-s 192.10] Practice Note See Local Court Practice Note Crim 1 at [28-15,205] for procedures for case management of criminal proceedings in the Local Court.

[2-s 193] Procedure if offence admitted 193 (1) If the accused person pleads guilty, and does not show sufficient cause why he or she should not be convicted or not have an order made against him or her, the court must convict the accused person or make the order accordingly. (2) This section does not apply if the court does not accept the accused person’s guilty plea. COMMENTARY ON SECTION 193 Plea of guilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Withdrawal of plea of guilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[2-s 193.1] [2-s 193.5] [2-s 193.10]

[2-s 193.1] Plea of guilty The effect of the section was considered in Collier v DPP (NSW) [2011] NSWCA 202; BC201105441; 18(8) Crim LN [2945] where it was held that a plea of guilty was valid if made by the accused’s legal representative in the absence of the accused and without the need for the court to state the charge before the plea is taken. A plea of guilty constitutes an admission of all the essential elements of the offence. If the magistrate forms the view that the evidence does not support the charge or that for any other reason the charge is not supportable, he or she should advise the accused person to withdraw his or her plea and plead not guilty: s 193(2). But he or she cannot compel an accused person to do so and, if the person refuses, the plea must

216

Job: (unknown)/howie/allvols/2019/2_CPPN.CPACT Page: 196 Date: 6/11/2019 Time: 16:55:53 bwpageid:: 216:: bwservice::0::

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986

[2-s 193.5]

be considered final, subject only to the discretion to grant leave to change the plea to one of not guilty under s 207 at any time before the matter is disposed of by sentence or otherwise: see Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501 at 510–11, 522; 135 ALR 1 at 7, 16; [1995] HCA 62; BC9600609; (1996) 3 Crim LN 9 [533]; El Hassan v DPP [2000] NSWCA 330; BC200007117 at [15]–[16]. Per Dawson and McHugh JJ in Maxwell v R, above, at CLR 511; ALR 7: The plea of guilty must, however, be unequivocal and not made in circumstances suggesting that it is not a true admission of guilt. Those circumstances include ignorance, fear, duress, mistake or even the desire to gain a technical advantage. The plea may be accompanied by a qualification indicating that the accused is unaware of its significance. If it appears to the trial judge, for whatever reason, that a plea of guilty is not genuine, he or she must (and it is not a matter of discretion) obtain an unequivocal plea of guilty or direct that a plea of not guilty be entered. But otherwise an accused may insist upon pleading guilty. Where the accused person’s version of the facts is inconsistent with the plea, the court should give the defence the opportunity to withdraw the plea and if that does not occur and the accused person insists upon pleading guilty, the court should ignore the accused person’s version: R v Martin (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 720; 21 WN (NSW) 233; Marlow v R [1990] 1 Tas SR 1 followed in Blazevski v Judges of the District Court (1992) 29 ALD 197 at 208–9, 212–13; BC9201492. The common law principles concerning the rejection of a guilty plea apply in the Local Court if a plea is rejected under s 193(2): Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157; [2008] NSWSC 953; BC200808086 at [39]–[45]; (2008) 15 Crim LN 115 [2445]. [2-s 193.5] Pleas of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict Technically, it may be that the plea in bar of autrefois acquit may only be entered in proceedings on indictment. However, a Local Court may apply the common law rule against