Markovic v The Queen (No. 1) - [2022] NSWDC 353

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Markovic v R (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 353
Hearing dates: 11 August 2022
Date of orders: 11 August 2022
Decision date: 11 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
The application is incompetent and therefore refused

Catchwords:
APPEALS — Jurisdiction of appellate court — District Court
CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
District Court Act 1973
Road Transport Act 2013

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Duro George Markovic (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Sasha Milanovic (counsel for the Appellant)
Stephen Makin (solicitor for the Respondent (ODPP))

File Number(s): 2020/00337582

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction

This is the judgement in the application made by way of court file 2020/00337582.
Duro George Markovic was convicted after a hearing on 22 April 2021 in the Local Court at Manly of an offence of driving whilst disqualified on 27 November 2020 contrary to s 54(1)(a) Road Transport Act 2013. The maximum penalty specified for the offence is imprisonment for six months, with a fine of $3,300, and an automatic period of disqualification of six months that might be reduced to three months in the discretion of the Court.
The magistrate had the applicant enter a Community Corrections order from 22 April 2021 for 12 months, accompanied by a fine of $1,100 with a disqualification of six months. An appeal was lodged on the same day, 22 April 2021. A stay was granted.

The Offence

The offence occurred when at 12.45am on 27 November 2022 police travelling in Pittwater Road, Narrabeen, by way of the automatic number recognition system, detected a warning in respect of a black Ford motor vehicle, with the registered number specified in the material before me. The information provided was that the driver of the vehicle was likely to be suspended. The vehicle was caused to be stopped; the applicant was driving. He produced a licence with his image. The police inquiries on their system revealed that his licence was disqualified due to fine default on 16 October 2020 and until 16 October 2025. The police sought to ask him questions, but the applicant remained silent. He was on bail at the time. He was later charged.

The Application

The appeal, according to the Court file, came before Robinson DCJ on 12 October 2021. According to the Court file the appeal was withdrawn. This must have been upon an application made to withdraw the appeal. It was consequently dismissed and the conviction and orders of the magistrate were confirmed.
The reasons behind that outcome are not before the Court, but a question arises as to whether this Court in the circumstances has power to do anything in respect of that matter.
These proceedings are governed by the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Section 21:

“(1) If an appeal or application for leave to appeal is dismissed because of the appellant’s failure…

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 Markovic v The Queen (No. 1)

Details

AGLC: Markovic v The Queen (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 353
Case: [2022] NSWDC 353
Decision Date: 11 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Markovic v The Queen (No. 1) involved the appellant, Markovic, who sought an appeal from a decision made by the Local Court to the District Court in Australia. Markovic was dissatisfied with the outcome of his criminal proceedings in the Local Court and sought to challenge the decision through an appeal to the higher court. The primary issue before the District Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Local Court. The court had to determine if the appeal was competent under the relevant legal provisions and if the District Court was the appropriate forum for such an appeal.

The District Court considered the legal framework governing appeals from the Local Court. The court examined the relevant statutes and case law to determine the procedural requirements and jurisdictional limits. It was essential to establish whether the appeal was lodged within the stipulated timeframe and if it complied with the necessary formalities. The court also had to ascertain whether the grounds of appeal were substantial enough to warrant a review of the original decision. Based on its analysis, the District Court concluded that the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for competence.

Upon reviewing the appeal, the District Court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The court determined that the appeal was incompetent due to procedural deficiencies and a lack of substantial grounds. Consequently, the District Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application. The reasoning focused on the procedural errors and the insufficiency of the grounds presented. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for appeals to ensure that only valid and substantial challenges are considered by higher courts.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is incompetent and therefore refused

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Markovic v R (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 353
Hearing dates:	11 August 2022
Date of orders:	11 August 2022
Decision date:	11 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	The application is incompetent and therefore refused
Catchwords:	APPEALS — Jurisdiction of appellate court — District Court CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 District Court Act 1973 Road Transport Act 2013
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Duro George Markovic (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:	Sasha Milanovic (counsel for the Appellant) Stephen Makin (solicitor for the Respondent (ODPP))
File Number(s):	2020/00337582