Legal Research
Cases
Transport for NSW v Chapoterera

Transport for NSW v Chapoterera

Link copied

Case Copied 26 July 2022 27 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Transport for NSW v Chapoterera [2022] NSWSC 976
Hearing dates: 08 July 2022
Date of orders: 08 July 2022
Decision date: 26 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
(1) Allow the appeal brought pursuant to s 56(1)(c) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
(2) Set aside the order of the Local Court at Gosford (Magistrate A. George) on 1 December 2021 in proceedings No. 2021/00299520.
(3) The proceedings be remitted to the Local Court at Gosford to be heard and determined according to law by a Magistrate other than his Honour Magistrate A. George.
(4) No order as to costs.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – summary proceedings – where Magistrate dismissed charges on submissions by the accused without sworn evidence – where Magistrate prompted to hold a hearing but refused – where hearing was apparently not “justified” and would “waste the Court’s time” – where prosecutor was denied the opportunity to make submissions on the law – process fundamentally flawed – proceedings seriously miscarried
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – hearing – examination and cross-examination of witnesses – discussion of statutory obligations in summary proceedings – Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ch 4 pts 2 and 3
APPEALS – from Local Court to Supreme Court – procedural fairness – hearing rule – failure to comply with statutory provisions – failure to give adequate reasons – grounds of appeal upheld – consideration of judicial review or statutory appeal
APPEALS — jurisdiction of appellate court — Supreme Court – whether remittal available on statutory appeal – power to make “such other order as it thinks just” – Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ss 56 and 59 – remittal ordered

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 56 and 59
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ch 4 pts 2 and 3, ss 190, 194, 195 and 202
Road Rules 2014 (NSW) r 300
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 69
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) pt 51B r 10
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 59.3

Cases Cited:
ACN 087 528 774 Pty Ltd (formerly Connex Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd) v Chetcuti (2008) 21 VR 559; [2008] VSCA 274
AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126
Beckner v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1991) 30 FCR 49
Boral Gas (NSW) Pty Ltd v Magill (1993) 32 NSWLR 501
Bradley v Senior Constable Chilby [2020] NSWSC 145s
Campbelltown City Council v Vegan (2006) 67 NSWLR 372; [2006] NSWCA 284
Carly Anne Coles v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2022] NSWSC 960
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Belani [2005] NSWSC 1013
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Gatu [2014] NSWSC 192
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Lopez-Aguilar [2013] NSWSC 1019
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v…

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 Transport for NSW v Chapoterera 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: [2022] NSWSC 976
Decision Date: 26 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Transport for NSW v Chapoterera involved the defendant Chapoterera who was charged with offences under the Transport Administration Act 1996 (NSW). The dispute centred around the handling of the summary proceedings by the Local Court Magistrate. The Magistrate dismissed the charges without allowing for a hearing or sworn evidence, claiming that a hearing was unjustified and would waste the Court's time. The prosecutor was not given the opportunity to make submissions on the law, leading to concerns about procedural fairness and the proper administration of justice. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Local Court proceedings were fundamentally flawed and whether they seriously miscarried. The Court was required to determine whether the Local Court Magistrate's decision to dismiss the charges without a hearing and without allowing for sworn evidence complied with the statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and whether the process was fair and just. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Local Court's refusal to hold a hearing was justified and whether the dismissal of the charges without proper examination and cross-examination of witnesses was appropriate.

The Supreme Court held that the Local Court proceedings were indeed fundamentally flawed and had seriously miscarried. The Court found that the Magistrate's decision to dismiss the charges without a hearing was an error of law as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and noted that the accused had the right to a proper hearing and for the prosecutor to make submissions on the law. The Supreme Court concluded that the Local Court's handling of the case was not in accordance with the law and that the proceedings had to be remitted for a proper hearing. The Supreme Court ordered the remittal of the case back to the Local Court for a fresh hearing, ensuring that all statutory provisions were followed and that the accused received a fair trial.

The final orders of the Supreme Court included the remittal of the case back to the Local Court for a fresh hearing. The Court also noted that while the accused could seek judicial review or statutory appeal, the appropriate course in this instance was the statutory appeal under the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The Supreme Court retained the power to make such other orders as it thought just, ensuring that the accused's rights were protected and that the proceedings were conducted fairly and lawfully.

Orders