Jankovic v Director of Public Prosecutions

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, considered an appeal by Rodna Jankovic against the District Court's dismissal of her appeal against convictions for resisting and intimidating police officers in the execution of their duty. The convictions had been recorded in the Local Court.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had erred in law, and specifically committed jurisdictional error, when dismissing Jankovic's appeal. This involved determining whether the arresting officer had lawfully arrested Jankovic without a warrant, and whether there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of section 99(1)(b) of the *Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002* (NSW). This section requires an arresting officer to be satisfied that an arrest without warrant is reasonably necessary for specific reasons, necessitating an evaluative judgment regarding a proportionate response to risk. The Court also considered whether the District Court's refusal to submit a question to the Court of Criminal Appeal constituted a constructive refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had made a central finding of fact for which there was no basis in the evidence presented in the Local Court. This constituted an error of law, and given the nature of the error, it was considered jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the District Court's appellate function was to rehear the matter on the basis of the Local Court evidence, and its failure to do so, by introducing unsupported findings, vitiated its determination.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court's appellate determination upholding Jankovic's convictions. The matter was remitted to the District Court for determination according to law, and the Director of Public Prosecutions was ordered to pay Jankovic's costs.