Spillane v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

[2025] NSWCA 130

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdictional error
3. › Procedural fairness
4. › Criminal conviction appeal in District Court
5. › Refusal of application to recall complainant for further cross-examination
6. › Whether refusal amounted to denial of procedural fairness
7. › Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 19
1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdictional error
3. › Relevant and irrelevant considerations
4. › Whether District Court failed to take into account evidence supportive of applicant's case
5. › Whether District Court incorrectly assumed existence of corroborative evidence
6. › Whether failure to give Murray direction constituted jurisdictional error or error of law on face of record
7. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176
1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdictional error
3. › Sufficiency of evidence
4. › Whether sufficient evidence to find conduct was 'towards' another person
5. › Whether sufficient evidence to find defendant knew of lack of consent
6. › Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61KE

Quick Take

A refusal to recall a complainant for further cross-examination on a District Court conviction appeal does not constitute a denial of procedural fairness where the transcript shows the complainant was sufficiently challenged on the matters raised, and a failure to give a Murray direction is an error of law on the face of the record excluded by s 176 of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), not jurisdictional error.