LOCAL-COURT课件.pptxVIP

;LOCAL COURT; Costs: De Verda v Constable Stengord (NSW Police) [2011] NSWSC 868.  Costs in Summary Proceedings – ss211 – 219 CPA, in particular s214 – Jurisdictional error by Magistrate in applying the wrong test in deciding whether to award costs to the defence after dismissing the charge.; The Magistrate failed to get over the first jurisdictional hurdle, s32 (1), as the treating doctor’s report had stated “he does suffer from a mental condition…” [per the 3rd proviso in s.32(1)] but failed to add the remaining words of the section, being “…for which treatment is available in a mental health facility.” The Court made it clear that if the defence is relying on s.32 (1)(a)(iii) to bring a matter within the jurisdiction of s.32, then all three elements of that section must be specified in the report, being: Suffering from a mental condition; For which treatment is available in a mental health facility; But is not a mentally ill person.;Although an appeal relevant to a sentence in the District Court for an offence that carried a standard non-parole period, this decision reaffirms the correct approach to sentencing in all types of cases as set out in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, “instinctive synthesis”. It is also a valuable judgement when considering sentence for an accused suffering from an intellectual disability.;Deemed Supply (20 Ecstasy tablets, small amount of cannabis on a Form1) dealt with in District Court by a 2 year S10 Bond. Crown Inadequacy appeal dismissed as NSWCCA found “Her Honour’s sentence in this case was not manifestly inadequate” Per Harrison J “Considerations of extra curial punishment may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion conferred by section 10” R v KNL [2005] NSWCCA 260;If the seriousness of the present offence and the need for denunciation and general deterrence are important considerations, they are to my mind more than adequately contemplated in this case by both the terms a