Co v Director of Public Prosecutions

Case [2020] NSWSC 1123


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: CO v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1123
Hearing dates: 19 August 2020
Date of orders: 19 August 2020
Decision date: 19 August 2020
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:

(1) Leave is granted to file the Summons out of time pursuant to r 51B(6) of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) (“SCR”).

(2) Electronic service of the Summons upon the defendant is permitted pursuant to r 51B(12) SCR.

(3) The date of the final hearing of the Summons is abridged pursuant to r 51B(15) SCR.

(4) The appeal under s 52(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) is allowed.

(5) The control orders made under s33(1)(g) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) by Magistrate Day in the Children’s Court at Orange on 12 June 2020 are set aside and the matter remitted to the Children’s Court at Orange to be dealt with in accordance with this decision pursuant to s 55(2)(c) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act.

(6) The matter is next listed for mention at the Children’s Court at Orange on 24 August 2020.

(7) No order is made as to costs. The parties have liberty to apply within 14 days should a costs order be sought.

Catchwords:

CRIME — appeal and review — appeal from Children’s Court and Local Court to Supreme Court — by person convicted or sentenced on a question of law alone — provision of background report — s 25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act

Legislation Cited:

Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 19, s 25, s 33(1)(g)

Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW)

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 52(1) and 55(2)

Cases Cited:

BT v R (2012) 227 A Crim R 354; [2012] NSWCCA 276

CTM v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 131

ID, PF and DV v Director General, Department of Juvenile Justice (2008) 73 NSWLR 158; [2008] NSWSC 966

Regina v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: CO (Plaintiff)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr N Broadbent (Plaintiff)
Ms V Garrity (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Plaintiff)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/00241408
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Children’s Court and Local Court
Date of Decision:
12 June 2020
Before:
Magistrate Day
File Number(s):
2020/161323, 2020/76162, 2019/243521, 2019/255548, 2019/306039

Judgment (revised from ex tempore)

  1. By way of summons filed in court today, the plaintiff CO seeks an order pursuant to ss 52(1) and 55(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) setting aside control orders imposed on him under s 33(1)(g) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) at the Children's Court in Orange by Magistrate Day on 12 June 2020.

  2. The matter came before me in my capacity as duty judge on an urgent basis. For reasons I will set out below, I propose to make the orders sought today.

  3. An affidavit sworn by Mr Gerry Stapleton…

Details
AGLC
CO v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] NSWSC 1123
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1123
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Co v Director of Public Prosecutions involves an appeal from the Children's Court and Local Court to the Supreme Court by a person convicted or sentenced solely on a question of law. The respondent, who was convicted in the Local Court, contested the sufficiency of the background report provided under section 25 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. The appeal hinges on the adequacy of the report and its compliance with the statutory requirements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the background report provided to the trial judge was sufficient in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act. The appellant argued that the report did not meet the necessary standards for being considered a proper and sufficient background report, which is crucial for the court to make an informed decision in sentencing. The court had to determine if the deficiencies in the report warranted a quashing of the conviction and a retrial.

The court examined the statutory requirements for a background report and considered whether the report provided met those standards. It found that the report, while not perfect, contained sufficient information for the trial judge to make an informed decision. The court held that the deficiencies did not reach the level of being so significant as to necessitate a retrial. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.