Nan v Director of Public Prosecutions

[1999] NSWCA 445

CITATION:	Nan v DPP [1999] NSWCA 445
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 040193/99
HEARING DATE(S):	25 November 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 November 1999
PARTIES :	Appellant- Vasile Nan Respondent- Director of Public Prosecutions
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Handley JA at 4; Fitzgerald JA at 5

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	128/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Nield J

COUNSEL:	Appellant- Vasile Nan - litigant in person Respondent- Mr Lamprati
SOLICITORS:	Appellant- litigant in person Respondent- Director of Public Prosecutions
CATCHWORDS:	Disqualification of licence; Failure to convert Queensland driver's licence to NSW driver's licence within three months
ACTS CITED:	Justices Act
DECISION:	Dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 040193/99

MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
FITZGERALD JA

THURSDAY 25 NOVEMBER 1999

VASILE NAN v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & 1 OR.

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: In this matter on 2 September 1998 at a court in Katoomba a magistrate convicted the claimant, Mr Vasile Nan, of the driving offence of driving without an appropriate licence. He was convicted, fined $500 and disqualified from holding a licence for six months. For various reasons which are not presently relevant Mr Nan was not present at that hearing, however, the matter came to his attention and he filed a notice of appeal to the District Court. That appeal was heard pursuant to s122 of the Justices Act by his Honour Judge Nield. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was confirmed. 2 The main point which his Honour had to decide in the District Court appeal was whether Mr Nan had at the time of the alleged offence been resident of New South Wales for more than three months. His Honour found that Mr Nan had been so resident and that is why the appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed. He was fined $100 and disqualified from holding or obtaining any licence up to and including 23 August 1999 which of course means that the period of disqualification has expired and he is now not disqualified.
3   His Honour, did not, as far as I can see, commit any error of law and in the circumstances it is not easy to see on what basis the claimant is bringing the present matter before us and whilst we sympathise with him and I am grateful to him for what he has told us we must come to the conclusion in my view that his summons should be dismissed with costs.
4   HANDLEY JA: I agree. 5   FITZGERALD JA: I agree.
********