District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Krste Kovacevski v R [2018] NSWDC 14 Hearing dates: 9 November 2017, 30 November 2017, 07 December 2017, 12 December 2017 Date of orders: 19 February 2018 Decision date: 19 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Conviction appeal dismissed: Confirm orders of Local Court convicting the Appellant.
Catchwords: Appeal, maliciously damage property, Can you be convicted of destroying own property? Effect of Federal Circuit court property orders, Nature of wife’s interest consequent on Court’s orders, property transfer not yet registered, damage before registration of transfer to wife in accordance with order, Does Real Property Act 1900 limit Crimes Act 1900? Tangible and intangible property, meaning of “property”, meaning of “belonging to”, Claim of right Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 NSW; Interpretation Act 1987 NSW; Real Property Act 1900 NSW; Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001; Criminal Procedure Act 1987 NSW; Justices Act 1902 NSW (repealed); Crimes Act 1983 (Vic); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA): Real Property Act 1986 (SA); Criminal Code Act 1995 (Comm) Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27
Barry v Heider (1914) 19 CLR 197
Bignill v DPP [2016] NSWCA 13
Charara v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 39
Corin v Patton; (1990) 169 CLR 540
Director of Public Prosecutions v AG (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 218
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Engelbrecht v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2016] NSWCA 290
Evans [1957] NZLR 1128; Ex Parte Burnett;
Re Wicks [1968] 2 NSWR 119; Gianoutis v Glykis (2006) 65 NSWLR 539;
Grajewski v DPP (NSW) [2017] NSWCCA 251
Holden v R (1998) 103 A Crim R 70
Knaggs v Director of Public Prosecutions NSW [2007] NSWCA 83
O’Regan v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1921] St R Qd 283
Parsons v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 619
Myerson v. Collard 25 CLR 154 (1918) 24 ALR 306 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 at [78]
R v Burgess [2005] NSWCCA 52
R v Manser (1999) SASC 91
Re Day [No 2] [2017] HCA 14
The Queen v Hodgson, unreported TCCA, 21 August 1985 16 of 1985; Tietyens v Cox (1916) 17 SR NSW 48
Walton v Salmon, NSWSC Loveday J 24/4/92; (1992) 10 Petty Session Review 4530Texts Cited: Crimes Act: Proof Material in Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW, R Howie and P Johnson, Butterworths; Damage and Computer offences, Model Criminal Code, Chapter 4, The Model Criminal Code Officer’s Committee, AG Comm. January 2000; The Torrens System In New South Wales, Westlaw (on line), Thomson Reuters (2017); Edgeworth B, Rossiter CJ, Stone MA 2004, Sackville and Neave Property Law: Cases and Materials, 7th Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, pp. 55-56. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Krste Kovacevski (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent).Representation: Solicitors:
Mr P Paine (for the Appellant)
Ms J Walshe (for Director of Public Prosecutions NSW
File Number(s):
Continue reading Krste Kovacevski v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Krste Kovacevski v The Queen [2018] NSWDC 14
- Case
- [2018] NSWDC 14
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved the conviction of Krste Kovacevski for maliciously damaging property. The case originated in the Local Court, and Kovacevski appealed to the higher court. The primary issue was whether one can be convicted of destroying property that they own. The appeal also considered whether the Real Property Act 1900 limited the application of the Crimes Act 1900. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the meaning of "property" and "belonging to" within the context of the legislation, and whether the wife's interest in the property post-court orders could be considered tangible or intangible. Finally, the court had to assess whether Kovacevski's actions could be justified by a claim of right.
The court found that one can indeed be convicted of damaging property that they own, as ownership alone does not exempt a person from liability under the Crimes Act 1900. The court also held that the Real Property Act 1900 did not limit the application of the Crimes Act 1900. Regarding the meaning of "property" and "belonging to", the court concluded that the wife's interest in the property, as per the court orders, was tangible. The court further held that Kovacevski's actions could not be justified by a claim of right, as the damage occurred before the property transfer to the wife was registered. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and orders of the Local Court were confirmed.
No additional orders were made by the court beyond confirming the Local Court's orders convicting the appellant.
The court found that one can indeed be convicted of damaging property that they own, as ownership alone does not exempt a person from liability under the Crimes Act 1900. The court also held that the Real Property Act 1900 did not limit the application of the Crimes Act 1900. Regarding the meaning of "property" and "belonging to", the court concluded that the wife's interest in the property, as per the court orders, was tangible. The court further held that Kovacevski's actions could not be justified by a claim of right, as the damage occurred before the property transfer to the wife was registered. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and orders of the Local Court were confirmed.
No additional orders were made by the court beyond confirming the Local Court's orders convicting the appellant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Conviction appeal dismissed: Confirm orders of Local Court convicting the Appellant.
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.