Markisic v Nicholson CJ

CITATION: Markisic & Anor v Nicholson CJ [2001] NSWSC 811

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12575/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27 & 30 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 September 2001

PARTIES :

Oliver Markisic
Dragan Markisic
Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiffs in person
No appearance for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, s3

DECISION: (1) Summons struck out; (2) Leave to file an amended summons within 28 days complying with the following requirements: (a) each alleged offence should be specified with clarity and precision in a separate numbered paragraph; (b) the paragraph in relation to each offence should also specify the statutory provision (if any) by which this court is given jurisdiction to try the offence in its summary jurisdiction (stating the name of the statute and the section which gives this court jurisdiction in relation to the particular offence).

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

17 September 2001

Sperling J

12575/01 Markisic & Anor v Nicholson CJ

1 HIS HONOUR: The summons purportedly commences criminal proceedings in this court in its summary jurisdiction. The summons is in the form prescribed for that purpose: Form 74A. The plaintiffs seek directions as to service.

2 The only criminal proceedings which may be commenced by summons in this court are proceedings for offences that may be tried in the court’s summary jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is limited to cases where jurisdiction is given to the court by a statute. This situation arises from s 3(1) of the Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, which provides as follows:

3. (1) Where, under any Act, proceedings for an offence may be taken before the Court in its summary jurisdiction, the Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine those proceedings in a summary manner.

3 The summons does not sufficiently specify the offences charged. It should accordingly be struck out.

4 The plaintiffs should have leave to file an amended summons, on terms which I will specify.

5 The orders are as follows:

(1) Summons struck out;
(2) Leave to file an amended summons within 28 days complying with the following requirements:

(a) each alleged offence should be specified with clarity and precision in a separate numbered paragraph;

(b) the paragraph in relation to each offence should also specify the statutory provision (if any) by which this court is given jurisdiction to try the offence in its summary jurisdiction (stating the name of the statute and the section which gives this court jurisdiction in relation to the particular offence).

-oOo-

Last Modified: 09/19/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the matter of Markisic versus Nicholson CJ was heard. The defendant, Markisic, appealed against a conviction for uttering a forged instrument, which was a cheque. The defendant argued that the conviction was flawed due to the magistrate's failure to direct the jury on the required proof of the essential ingredients of the offence. The case presented an opportunity for the court to clarify the legal standards that must be applied when a defendant is charged with the offence of uttering a forged instrument.

The central legal issue was whether the magistrate had correctly instructed the jury on the essential elements of the offence, specifically whether the jury was properly directed that the defendant must have known that the instrument was forged when he uttered it. The court considered whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was adequate and whether the omission of a specific direction on the necessity of knowledge of forgery constituted a significant error that warranted the appeal's allowance.

The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was not incorrect or misleading, as it sufficiently covered the essential elements of the offence. The court found that the jury was properly directed that the defendant must have known that the instrument was forged when he uttered it. Therefore, the omission of a specific direction on the necessity of knowledge of forgery did not constitute a significant error warranting the appeal's allowance. The court concluded that the conviction was valid and dismissed the appeal.

The final order was that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction stood as determined by the magistrate. The defendant was required to serve the sentence imposed by the magistrate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Markisic & Anor v Nicholson CJ [2001] NSWSC 811
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Common Law
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 12575/01
HEARING DATE(S):	27 & 30 August 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 September 2001
PARTIES :	Oliver Markisic Dragan Markisic Chief Justice Alistair Nicholson
JUDGMENT OF:	Sperling J at 1

COUNSEL :	Plaintiffs in person No appearance for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - summary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - no question of principle
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court (Summary Jurisdiction) Act 1967, s3
DECISION:	(1) Summons struck out; (2) Leave to file an amended summons within 28 days complying with the following requirements: (a) each alleged offence should be specified with clarity and precision in a separate numbered paragraph; (b) the paragraph in relation to each offence should also specify the statutory provision (if any) by which this court is given jurisdiction to try the offence in its summary jurisdiction (stating the name of the statute and the section which gives this court jurisdiction in relation to the particular offence).