Dacich v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The applicant, Dacich, sought to review a judgment of the District Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed an appeal against a sentence imposed in the Local Court. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned the District Court's refusal to reopen the applicant's sentence appeal, which the applicant contended constituted a jurisdictional error due to an alleged failure to properly account for an error in the calculation of a prior partly concurrent sentence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court had erred in law by refusing to reopen the sentence appeal. Specifically, the court considered whether the District Court’s decision amounted to a jurisdictional error, particularly in light of the applicant's assertion that the original sentence calculation contained an error that should have been rectified on appeal. The court also had to consider the procedural aspects of the application, including the applicant's request for an extension of time to commence proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had not made a jurisdictional error. The court reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated that the District Court failed to exercise its appellate jurisdiction or that it acted outside its legal authority. While acknowledging the applicant's submission regarding the error in the original sentence calculation, the court concluded that this did not, in the circumstances, give rise to a jurisdictional error on the part of the District Court. The court also noted that the applicant had given notice of discontinuance after the hearing had commenced, which would ordinarily require leave.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered an extension of time for the commencement of proceedings to review the sentencing judgment of 5 March 2021 until the date of the hearing. However, the proceedings with respect to the judgments and orders made in the District Court on 5 March and 18 August 2021 were dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the Director's costs in the Court of Appeal.