Legal Research
Cases
Sasterawan v Morris

Sasterawan v Morris

Case [2007] NSWCCA 185 28 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 69 NSWLR 547174 A Crim R 514

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: SASTERAWAN v MORRIS [2007] NSWCCA 185

HEARING DATE(S): 4 June 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Grove J at 39; Hidden J at 40

DECISION: Questions answered at [37].

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - authority of a public officer to commence criminal proceedings in the Local Court – jurisdiction of Local Court to hear proceedings instituted by a public officer for an offence under s 178BB Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – case stated – no power to find facts – formulating question of law - CRIMINAL APPEAL – whether the charge on appeal before the District Court must be identical to that before the Local Court - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – extension of time to request a stated case – alternative proceedings in Court of Appeal – abuse of process - WORDS AND PHRASES – "person" - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s14

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 178BB, 338
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 11, 18, 20
Crimes and Court Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (NSW), Sch 1 [12]
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5B
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 126, 172, 173, 174, Ch 2, Pt 1; Ch 4, Pt 2, Div 1
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), s 179
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 (NSW), s 106
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 46, 69

CASES CITED: Brisbane City Council v Valuer-General (Qld) (1978) 140 CLR 41
Charara v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 244, (2006) 164 A Crim R 39
Dennis v Watt (1942) 59 WN(NSW) 204
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cassell (1995) 80 A Crim R 160
Epacris Pty Ltd v Director-General, Department of Natural Resources [2007] NSWCCA 76
Ex parte McGavin; Re Berne (1945) 46 SR(NSW) 58
Fordham v Fordyce [2007] NSWCA 129
Garrett v Freeman [2006] NSWCCA 278
Hill v King (1993) 31 NSWLR 654
John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Mack v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) (1920) 28 CLR 373
Meagher v Stephenson (1993) 30 NSWLR 736
R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10
R v Longshaw (1990) 20 NSWLR 554
Robinson v Woolworths Ltd [2005] NSWCCA 426, (2005) 64 NSWLR 612
Swansson v Regina; Henry v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 67
The Queen v Rigby (1956) 100 CLR 146

PARTIES: Wahyu Sasterawan - Appellant
Judith Morris - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/707

COUNSEL: R. Killalea - Appellant
P. O'Donnell - Respondent

SOLICITORS: B. Bian, City Law Firm Pty Ltd - Appellant
Smyth Wozniak - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/22/0149

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: March 2007

CCA 2007/707
DC 05/22/0149

BASTEN JA
GROVE J
HIDDEN J
28 June 2007

Wahyu SASTERAWAN v Judith…

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 Sasterawan v Morris

Details

AGLC: Sasterawan v Morris [2007] NSWCCA 185
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 185
Decision Date: 28 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sasterawan appealed against a conviction for an offence under section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that was heard and determined by the Local Court. Morris filed a complaint with the police, and as a result, the police commenced proceedings against Sasterawan in the Local Court. Sasterawan brought an appeal to the District Court against the conviction. The appeal was dismissed by the District Court, and Sasterawan then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and he now appeals to the High Court.
The central issue before the court was whether the Local Court had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings instituted by a public officer for an offence under section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court also had to decide whether the charge on appeal before the District Court must be identical to that before the Local Court, and whether there was an abuse of process in extending the time to request a stated case and bringing alternative proceedings in the Court of Appeal. The court also had to consider the meaning of the word "person" in section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

The court found that the Local Court did have jurisdiction to hear the proceedings instituted by a public officer for an offence under section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The court also found that the charge on appeal before the District Court did not have to be identical to that before the Local Court. However, the court found that there was an abuse of process in extending the time to request a stated case and bringing alternative proceedings in the Court of Appeal. The court held that the word "person" in section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) includes a body corporate as well as an individual. The court held that the appeal was dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The court held that the appeal was an abuse of process and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact that warranted the intervention of the High Court. The court held that the Local Court had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings instituted by a public officer for an offence under section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and that the charge on appeal before the District Court did not have to be identical to that before the Local Court. The court held that the word "person" in section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) includes a body corporate as well as an individual.

Orders