Sharman v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] NSWSC 135

Sharman v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] NSWSC 135

The facsimile transmission of the court attendance notice to the plaintiff's solicitor was not valid service under r 18 because it was not service to the plaintiff's residential address. Section 177(4) required the filed copy of the court attendance notice to contain an endorsement as to valid service, and that requirement was a condition of commencement in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Because the filed notice did not bear an endorsement of the valid personal service effected on 17 December 2004, the proceedings were not commenced within the six-month period in s 179(1), and the Local Court lacked jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Summons Seeking Declaratory and Prerogative Relief Concerning Commencement of Summary Criminal Proceedings in the Local Court / Hearing of Summons After Local Court Preliminary Ruling That Proceedings Had Been Validly Commenced
Outcome
Declaration made for the plaintiff; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['commencement of Summary Proceedings' 'court Attendance Notices' 'service of Process' 'endorsement as to Service' 'local Court Jurisdiction' 'six Month Limitation Period']
['criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['commencement of Summary Proceedings' 'court Attendance Notices' 'service of Process' 'endorsement as to Service' 'local Court Jurisdiction' 'six Month Limitation Period']

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

Supreme Court Summons Seeking Declaratory and Prerogative Relief Concerning Commencement of Summary Criminal Proceedings in the Local Court / Hearing of Summons After Local Court Preliminary Ruling That Proceedings Had Been Validly Commenced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summary proceedings against the plaintiff were commenced within the six-month period required by s 179(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' "Whether facsimile transmission of the court attendance notice to the plaintiff's solicitor amounted to valid service under the Local Courts (Criminal and Applications Procedure) Rule 2003." 'Whether s 177(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 required the filed copy of the court attendance notice to contain an endorsement as to valid service in order for proceedings to be commenced in accordance with the Act.' 'Whether the Local Court had jurisdiction to hear the charges where the filed court attendance notice did not bear an endorsement of the personal service effected on the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The facsimile transmission of the court attendance notice to the plaintiff's solicitor was not valid service under r 18 because it was not service to the plaintiff's residential address. Section 177(4) required the filed copy of the court attendance notice to contain an endorsement as to valid service, and that requirement was a condition of commencement in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Because the filed notice did not bear an endorsement of the valid personal service effected on 17 December 2004, the proceedings were not commenced within the six-month period in s 179(1), and the Local Court lacked jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Declaration made for the plaintiff; first defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Declare that proceedings with respect to court attendance notice H22904640 for charge cases 087/908/65, 087/916/05 and 087/924/05 were not commenced within the period limited by s 179(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and that the Local Court is without jurisdiction to hear them.' "The first defendant is to...