Sasterawan v Morris

The case of *Sasterawan v Morris* concerned an appeal brought by Wahyu Sasterawan against three convictions entered by the Local Court under s 178BB(1) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW). The appeal was heard by Nicholson DCJ in the District Court. Sasterawan subsequently sought relief in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, primarily by way of certiorari, challenging the decision of the District Court judge.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether the District Court judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for his decision constituted an error of law or jurisdictional error. The court also considered whether a party could request the primary judge to amend or supplement reasons prior to the entry of judgment, and whether the judge had failed to find an essential element of the charge proven or had misstated the burden of proof. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether it should exercise its discretion to grant relief in the nature of certiorari, and if any alleged errors of law should have been raised as questions of law in a case stated to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Supreme Court, comprising Beazley JA, Tobias JA, and McClellan CJ at CL, found that the District Court judge's ex tempore judgment was insufficient. The court reasoned that the judge's reasons did not adequately demonstrate that the essential elements of the offence, namely that each document was false in a material particular, was published, and was done with intent to obtain a financial advantage, had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The judge's reliance on the appellant accepting an "evidential burden" and his comments on the appellant's evidence were found to be problematic. The court concluded that the judge's failure to provide proper reasons amounted to jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered that the District Court proceedings be removed into the Court of Appeal, that the orders made by Nicholson DCJ be quashed, and that the proceedings be remitted to the District Court for a rehearing. The costs of the earlier hearings were reserved for determination on the remitted appeal, and Sasterawan was ordered to pay the claimant's costs of the second amended summons filed in the Supreme Court.