R v Nacovski [2021] NSWDC 71

R v Nacovski [2021] NSWDC 71

The Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the offence under s 89(1) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, including that the appellant intentionally entered prohibited Commonwealth land, was aware of the substantial risk and took it unjustifiably, and that clear signage and warnings existed. For the state offence, the Court found that an 'authorised person' (Ms Punosevac) gave a clear and reasonable direction, which the appellant knowingly disobeyed. The appellant was not acting under a lawful excuse. Accordingly, the conviction appeal was dismissed and the convictions confirmed.

Parties
Crown: NSW DPP; Appellant: Bill Nacovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal From Local Court to District Court
Outcome
Conviction appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass on Prohibited Commonwealth Land, Failure to Obey Direction of Authorised Person, Burden of Proof, Judicial Notice, Lawful Excuse Under S.89(1) of Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Law Trespass on Prohibited Commonwealth Land Failure to Obey Direction of Authorised Person Burden of Proof Judicial Notice Lawful Excuse Under S.89(1) of Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NSW DPP

Crown

Bill Nacovski

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal From Local Court to District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant trespassed on prohibited Commonwealth land in contravention of s 89(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant failed to obey the direction of an authorised person contrary to s 304(1) of the NSW Road Rules 2014
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution established all elements of both offences beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt each element of the offence under s 89(1) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, including that the appellant intentionally entered prohibited Commonwealth land, was aware of the substantial risk and took it unjustifiably, and that clear signage and warnings existed. For the state offence, the Court found that an 'authorised person' (Ms Punosevac) gave a clear and reasonable direction, which the appellant knowingly disobeyed. The appellant was not acting under a lawful excuse. Accordingly, the conviction appeal was dismissed and the convictions confirmed.

Court Disposition

Conviction appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction appeal dismissed
  • Conviction for both offences confirmed