NSW Police v Pepper - [2016] NSWLC 15

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Pepper [2016] NSWLC 15
Hearing dates: 8 August 2016
Decision date: 23 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Heilpern LCM
Decision:
The papers are marked “no jurisdiction”. The prosecution is to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $990 within 14 days.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – prosecution statute barred - disposition of proceedings – papers to be marked ‘no jurisdiction’ - power to award costs where proceedings invalid
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 116, 117, 179, 213, 214
Justices Act 1902 (rep), s 81
Local Court Act 2007, s 69
Cases Cited: DPP v Cakici [2006] NSWSC 454
DPP v Goben [1999] NSWSC 696
DPP (NSW) v McDonald; DPP NSW) v Maitland [2015] NSWLC 7
Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404
NSW Police v JG (No 2) [2013] NSWLC 32
Category: Costs
Parties: NSW Police (prosecution)
Kirsty Louise Pepper (defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms Millar for the prosecution
Mr Riley for the defendant

File Number(s): 2016/168344

Judgment

Reasons for decision

On 1 June 2016, NSW Police served a Court Attendance Notice (CAN) on the defendant, for the offence of driving under the influence of certain prescription drugs. The incident for which the CAN was issued occurred on 29 November 2015. The CAN was created and filed on 3 June 2016.
It is not in dispute that the prosecution was statute barred due to s 179(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act1986.
The CAN required the attendance of the defendant at Lismore Court on 11 July 2016, and she sought legal advice from Mr Riley, who appeared at court to represent his client on the set date. The proceedings were adjourned for representations to 25 July 2016. On 22 July 2016, Mr Riley wrote to the police, noting that the CAN was issued out of time and seeking that the proceedings be withdrawn. On 25 July 2016, Mr Riley again appeared for his client, and the matter was adjourned solely on the issue of costs to 8 August 2016.
After hearing submissions I adjourned this matter on the question of costs.
There are three issues to be determined. First, what is the appropriate dispensation of the proceedings? Second, does this court have the power to make an order for costs? Third, if the court does have the power, should an order for costs be made?

Authorities and Legislation

The key legislative provision is s 213(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act (my emphasis):

213 When professional costs may be awarded to accused persons
(1) A court may at the end of summary proceedings order that the prosecutor pay professional costs to the registrar of the court, for payment to the accused person, if the matter is dismissed or withdrawn.
(2) The amount of professional costs is to be the amount that the Magistrate considers to be just and reasonable.
(3) Without limiting the operation of subsection (1), a court may order that the prosecutor in summary…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police v Pepper and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWLC 15
Decision Date: 23 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the New South Wales Police versus Pepper, the case before the court involved a dispute concerning the statute of limitations on criminal proceedings. The defendant, Pepper, argued that the prosecution was statute-barred, and thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution was statute-barred and, if so, whether the court had the authority to dismiss the proceedings and award costs to the defendant. The court had to determine whether the statutory time limits for initiating criminal proceedings had expired and what the appropriate disposition of the proceedings should be if the prosecution was indeed time-barred.

The court found that the prosecution was indeed statute-barred, as the statutory time limit for bringing the charges had expired. Consequently, the court determined that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The court held that it could mark the papers as "no jurisdiction" and dismiss the proceedings. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the defendant, finding that the total amount of $990 was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances.

The court ordered that the papers be marked “no jurisdiction” and that the prosecution pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $990 within 14 days. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in criminal proceedings and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

The papers are marked “no jurisdiction”. The prosecution is to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $990 within 14 days.

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:	NSW Police v Pepper [2016] NSWLC 15
Hearing dates:	8 August 2016
Decision date:	23 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Heilpern LCM
Decision:	The papers are marked “no jurisdiction”. The prosecution is to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $990 within 14 days.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – prosecution statute barred - disposition of proceedings – papers to be marked ‘no jurisdiction’ - power to award costs where proceedings invalid
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 116, 117, 179, 213, 214 Justices Act 1902 (rep), s 81 Local Court Act 2007, s 69
Cases Cited:	DPP v Cakici [2006] NSWSC 454 DPP v Goben [1999] NSWSC 696 DPP (NSW) v McDonald; DPP NSW) v Maitland [2015] NSWLC 7 Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404 NSW Police v JG (No 2) [2013] NSWLC 32
Category:	Costs
Parties:	NSW Police (prosecution) Kirsty Louise Pepper (defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms Millar for the prosecution Mr Riley for the defendant
File Number(s):	2016/168344