VELLA v. DPP [2005] NSWSC 897

VELLA v. DPP [2005] NSWSC 897

The magistrate could not properly rely on the plaintiff's alleged campaign against police as judicial notice because the material was not knowledge within s.144(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 and the plaintiff had not been given the opportunity required by s.144(4). Further, proved intimidation of a police officer under s.60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) necessarily subsumes harassment of that officer, so the plaintiff was entitled to raise a plea in bar to the harassment count where both charges were based on the same conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Challenge to Local Court Convictions for Harassment and Intimidation of a Police Officer / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal and for Convictions to Be Quashed and Remitted
Outcome
Extension of time for leave to appeal granted; Local Court orders vacated; convictions quashed; matter remitted; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['harassment of Police Officer' 'intimidation of Police Officer' 'judicial Notice' 'plea in Bar' 'double Punishment']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['harassment of Police Officer' 'intimidation of Police Officer' 'judicial Notice' 'plea in Bar' 'double Punishment']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Challenge to Local Court Convictions for Harassment and Intimidation of a Police Officer / Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal and for Convictions to Be Quashed and Remitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate erred by taking into account judicial notice of other activities of the plaintiff that were not the subject of evidence before the magistrate.' 'Whether the magistrate erred in law in convicting the plaintiff of both harassment and intimidation of the police officer in respect of the same conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate could not properly rely on the plaintiff's alleged campaign against police as judicial notice because the material was not knowledge within s.144(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 and the plaintiff had not been given the opportunity required by s.144(4). Further, proved intimidation of a police officer under s.60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) necessarily subsumes harassment of that officer, so the plaintiff was entitled to raise a plea in bar to the harassment count where both charges were based on the same conduct.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for leave to appeal granted; Local Court orders vacated; convictions quashed; matter remitted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['That the plaintiff be granted an extension of time for leave to appeal.' 'That the orders of the second defendant be vacated.' 'That the convictions be quashed.' 'That the matter be remitted back to the second defendant to be dealt with according to law.' 'No order as to costs.']