Vince Sunter v District Court of New South Wales

[2008] NSWCA 313

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Certiorari
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › District Court appeal from Local Court
5. › Whether use of uncertified transcript constituted jurisdictional error
6. › Whether failure to self-direct on identification evidence constituted jurisdictional error
7. › Whether absence of formal reasons constituted jurisdictional error
8. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
1. Evidence
2. › Identification evidence
3. › Caution required in considering identification evidence
4. › Whether failure to direct on dangers of identification evidence amounts to jurisdictional error as distinct from error of law
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Obligation to give reasons
4. › Extent of obligation
5. › Whether reasons given in exchanges with counsel during hearing are adequate reasons
6. › Whether inadequate reasons constitute jurisdictional error
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Meaning of 'certified transcript'
3. › Whether formal mark of certification required
4. › Effect of non-compliance with procedural requirement
5. › Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 18(1)

Quick Take

The word 'certified' in s 18(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) does not require a formal mark of certification; a transcript proven to be what it purports to be (including by admission without objection) satisfies the requirement. A failure by a District Court judge on a conviction appeal to expressly self-direct on the dangers of identification evidence is not jurisdictional error but at most an error of law. Reasons expressed in exchanges with counsel during the hearing, rather than in a formal judgment, can constitute adequate reasons.