Abreu v DPP - [2007] NSWCCA 183

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Abreu v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 183

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1, 17; Grove J at 2; Simpson J at 18

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 21 June 2007

DECISION: Remitted to District Court

CATCHWORDS: CASE STATED - HEARING IN DISTRICT COURT ON APPEAL FROM LOCAL COURT - LIMITED NATURE OF PROCEDURE AFFIRMED - WHETHER ISSUES RAISED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED - AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: R. v Madden [1995] 85 A Crim R 367
Thomas v The King (1937) 59 CLR 279

PARTIES: Jeffrey Antonio Abreu v New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/689

COUNSEL: G. Jauncey (Applicant)
P. Ingram (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: T. Voros (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/22/0437

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bennett DCJ

2007/689
BEAZLEY JA
GROVE J
SIMPSON J

Thursday 21 June 2007

JEFFREY ANTONIO ABREU v NSW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: The Court is in a position to answer the stated case. I will ask Grove J to give the first judgment.

2 GROVE J: Before the Court is a Case Stated by Bennett DCJ sitting at Parramatta District Court. Such is made available by s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The Court is limited to answering specific questions raised and should not refer to any other material which is not referred to in the Case Stated: Thomas v The King (1937) 59 CLR 279. The Court is not hearing an appeal against conviction and, as has been done in this instance, annexure of the reasons for judgment to the Case Stated does not alter the limitation.

3 No form is specified in the Act or Rules but it is appropriate for the judge to set out the findings of fact which have been made relevant to the questions of law which are posed. The Case Stated to which the judge appends his or her signature emerges from draft or drafts submitted by the parties.

4 The findings of fact are set out as follows:

“3. I found the following facts.

(i) At or about 5.50 am on 17 February 2006 in the Belfield area, Senior Constable Egner noticed Mazda motor vehicle, registered number MDZ 001. He made inquiries and was informed the owner of that particular vehicle had had his driver’s licence suspended by ‘the RTA’ from 14 February 2006 to 14 May 2006. This fact was not disputed before me.

(ii) Upon stopping the vehicle Senior Constable Egner had the following conversation with the Appellant, who was the driver of the vehicle at all relevant times:-

a) Senior Constable Egner said to the Appellant,

‘Hi there, you got your licence there? I’ll just let you know you are being recorded on audio and video by the police car.’

b) The Appellant replied ‘yeah’ and produced a NSW driver’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abreu v DPP

Details

AGLC: Abreu v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] NSWCCA 183
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 183
Decision Date: 21 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Abreu v DPP involves an appeal from the Local Court to the District Court, with the defendant, Abreu, challenging the decision of the Local Court in relation to the procedure followed. The dispute centres around the legal process that was employed during the defendant's hearing and whether certain issues were appropriately considered. The District Court was tasked with determining if the Local Court's procedural approach was correct and if any issues raised by the defendant should have been addressed.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the proper procedure to be adopted in the Local Court, particularly in relation to the consideration of any issues raised by the defendant. The court had to examine if the Local Court correctly adhered to established legal protocols and if it appropriately engaged with the matters presented by the defendant. The court was required to assess whether the Local Court should have considered the procedural issues raised and if there was any error in the way the hearing was conducted.

In its decision, the District Court upheld the Local Court's procedural approach, affirming that the process followed was appropriate. The court found that the issues raised by the defendant were not such that they should have been considered by the Local Court. The District Court concluded that the Local Court's decision was legally sound and that there was no procedural error warranting a different outcome. The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific procedural requirements of the Local Court and the nature of the issues presented by the defendant.

The final orders of the court confirmed the upholding of the Local Court's decision, thereby affirming the limited nature of the procedure that was followed. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the District Court's decision reinforced the procedural integrity of the Local Court's handling of the case.

Orders