Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JS [2025] NSWSC 1172
In this decision the Supreme Court has held that a certificate under s 177 of the Evidence Act is not required to comply with all the usual requirements for expert evidence. So long as it complies with the terms of s 177, and so long as there is no written objection, the certificate – and therefore
Marium v Van Zuylen [2024] NSWSC 258
In this decision a single judge of the Supreme Court has confirmed that a Court Attendance Notice (‘CAN’) can be replaced or amended at any time before a hearing by the issue of a new CAN, without leave being required. This is despite the words of the Criminal Procedure Act (‘the Act’) indicating, o
Brighton v RSPCA (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 1653
A Supreme Court judge, sitting alone, himself described this case as ‘arguably interesting’, involving, as it did, an unprovoked attack on a camel named Alice, the ‘barbaric’ killing of a dog by the owner, summary conviction, a successful appeal, remittal, and the eventual imposition of an ‘extraor
Elwood v Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] NSWSC 772
This decision came to public attention because of the remarks of the Magistrate, who had disparaged judgments – and judges – of the Supreme Court. But the reasons are likely to be important in committal matters where the case conference process is taking a long time – and perhaps in any matter which
Bugmy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 862
This decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, holds that, the only precondition to a police officer arresting a person for breach of bail is a formation of the relevant belief as to a breach of bail – the officer is not obliged to consider alternatives like a warning before determining to ar
Zahed v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWSC 368
This judgment of a single judge of the Supreme Court considers the factors that go into the question of whether, on application, the prosecution should be entitled to longer than the default six months for charge certification.
Stoneham v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 735
This single-judge decision provides that it will be an error if a Magistrate adjourns a sentence to get around the Local Court 5-year jurisdictional limit for offenders already serving a sentence.
Johnston v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 333
In this decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, it has been held when the prosecution wants to elect for a matter to be dealt with on indictment, the key event when talking about time limits is that the communication of the election, either orally to the Local Court, or by filing a notice.
Hamilton v DPP [2020] NSWSC 1745
This decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court deals with the scenario where a defendant agrees that they have committed the offence charged, but disagrees about the particulars of the allegation. It determines that the question of whether the defendant should be committed for sentence (with a
Bradley v Senior Constable Chilby [2020] NSWSC 145
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the duties of disclosure are broad, and a failure to comply with them can (and here, did) result in a temporary stay of proceedings, where police refused to produce a criminal history, Facts Sheets, and records of conversations between police officers and the po
Jones and Anor v Booth and Anor [2019] NSWSC 1066
In comments made in the context of applications under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, but which are relevant to any case where there is expert evidence of mental illness, the Supreme Court has commented on the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to have a psychologist
Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
In this decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court, it has been held (or perhaps confirmed) that the relevance to self-defence of intoxication is spent once it is taken into account in determining what the accused subjectively perceived.
Roads and Maritime Services v Farrell; Roads and Maritime Services v Northcott; Roads and Maritime Services v Le Thorn; Roads and Maritime Services v Touba; Roads and Maritime Services v Culpan; Roads and Maritime Services v Hooper [2019] NSWSC 552
In this set of joint matters, a single judge of the Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to Local Court registrars who simply sign application proceedings without considering jurisdiction, and has examined the eligibility of applicants under the Driver Disqualification Removal Scheme.
Balach v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 377
In a pair of judgments with relevance to practitioners who give advice in minor matters, or who regularly see District Court appeals, a single judge of the Supreme Court has held that where a written plea of guilty is sent in by a defendant, the Local Court is still obliged to consider whether a s10
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Banks [2019] NSWSC 363
The Supreme Court has determined a long-outstanding question about whether a Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief (‘DVEC’) recording might be admissible if the complainant doesn’t attend court. On appeal from the Local Court, a single judge of the Supreme Court has determined that admissibility is de
Devitt v Ross [2018] NSWSC 1675
It is not uncommon for defendants to lodge District Court appeals completely out of time – that is, even after the three month period where they can still seek leave to appeal. However, what should happen when a District Court appeal is out of time, and a Supreme Court appeal is also lodged in an at
Noufl v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWSC 1238
The Supreme Court has determined that a single judge cannot hear a bail application for a person sentenced in the District Court unless the applicant has first been refused bail in the District Court.
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Shaba [2018] NSWSC 811
A judge of the Supreme Court has held that police do not need to suspect that a person who is the subject of a Firearms Prohibition Order has a firearm before exercising a related power to search them.
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Kirby [2017] NSWSC 1754
In the course of confirming that the offence of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not require that the prosecution prove that the drugs or alcohol affected the accused’s manner of driving, the Supreme Court has also considered the procedure in relation to ‘no case to answer’ submi
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Charheh [2017] NSWSC 1061
The Supreme Court has emphasised that, generally, an inaccurate allegation about the date or time on which an offence occurred will not affect the outcome in a prosecution.