Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Aydogan & Anor

DPP v Aydogan & Anor

Case [2006] NSWSC 558 8 June 2006

Statutory Interpretation

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
67 NSWLR 727

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Director of Public Prosecutions v Levent Aydogan and Ravena Annie Gosper [2006] NSWSC 558

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 June 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: The appeal is allowed. I make the following orders and declaration; 1. That the order of the magistrate made on 29 June 2005 at the Downing Centre Local Court dismissing the proceedings against each defendant be set aside; 2. That the magistrate erred at law in finding the false statement made by the first defendant, dated 6 June 2003 in the matter of Police v Donna Maree Bishop did not constitute “evidence” for the purpose of s 317(b) of the Crimes Act 1900; 3. That the magistrate erred at law in finding the false statement made by the second defendant, dated 18 June 2003 in the matter of Police v Donna Maree Bishop did not constitute “evidence” for the purpose of s 317(b) of the Crimes Act 1900; 4. That the matters be remitted to the Local Court to be dealt with according to law; 5. That the defendants pay the Plaintiff’s costs in these proceedings. The costs are to be paid to the Registrar of the Downing Centre Local Court within two months of the receipt by the defendants of the bill of costs by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I grant to each of the defendants a certificate under s 6 of the Suitors Fund Act 1951

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from Local Court - whether Magistrate erred in law in finding that false statements were not "evidence" for purposes of s 317(b) Crimes Act - statutory interpretation of Part 7, Crimes Act - s 317 the statutory equivalent of attempt to pervert the course of justice.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes (Public Justice) Amendment Act 1990
Suitors Fund Act 1951

CASES CITED: R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268
R v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR
The Queen v Vreones (1891) 1 QB 360
R v Spezzano (1977) 76 DLR (3d) 160
R v Rowell [1978] 1 WLR 132
R v Machin [1980] 1 WLR 763
R v Murray [1982] 1 WLR 475

PARTIES: Plaintiff - Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant (1) Levent Aydogan
Defendant (2) Ravena Annie Gosper

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 14736/2005

COUNSEL: Plaintiff - P Buscombe
Defendants - J Dailly SC

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff - S Kavanagh
Defendants - Walter Madden Jenkins

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
COMMON LAW LIST

LATHAM J

8 JUNE 2006

14736/2005 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v LEVENT AYDOGAN and RAVENA ANNIE GOSPER

JUDGMENT

1 LATHAM J : In January and June of 2005, the first and second defendants were the subject of proceedings in the Local Court at the Downing Centre, charged with fabricating false evidence with intent to mislead a judicial tribunal pursuant to s 317(b) Crimes Act 1900. The magistrate dismissed the…

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 DPP v Aydogan & Anor

Details

AGLC: DPP v Aydogan & Anor [2006] NSWSC 558
Case: [2006] NSWSC 558
Decision Date: 8 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed a decision of the Local Court, which dismissed charges against two defendants, Aydogan and another individual. The defendants were charged with providing false statements to the police in the belief that doing so would prevent the discovery of stolen property. The case involved a statutory interpretation of Part 7 of the Crimes Act, specifically section 317(b), which criminalises the provision of false evidence. The defendants argued that the statements provided to the police were not "evidence" as required by the statute, and therefore, the charges should be dismissed. The court was required to determine whether the Magistrate had erred in law by accepting the defendants' argument.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 317(b) of the Crimes Act, which makes it an offence to provide false evidence with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The court had to decide whether the false statements made by the defendants constituted "evidence" for the purposes of the statute. The court also needed to examine whether the Magistrate's interpretation of the term "evidence" was correct and whether the dismissal of the charges was justified. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether section 317(b) should be interpreted as the statutory equivalent of an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

In determining the appeal, the court found that the Magistrate had erred in law by concluding that the false statements were not "evidence" for the purposes of section 317(b) of the Crimes Act. The court held that the term "evidence" should be interpreted broadly to include any information provided with the intent to mislead or deceive the police. The court noted that the false statements made by the defendants were intended to prevent the recovery of stolen property, which aligned with the objectives of section 317(b). Consequently, the court held that the Magistrate's decision to dismiss the charges was incorrect, and the charges against the defendants should be reinstated. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for further proceedings.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the charges against the defendants be reinstated, and the matter be remitted to the Local Court for further proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the term "evidence" broadly in the context of section 317(b) to ensure that the statute effectively combats attempts to pervert the course of justice. The court's decision highlighted the need for a careful examination of statutory language and the importance of statutory interpretation in criminal cases.

Orders