NSW Caselaw
District Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nacovski [2021] NSWDC 71 Hearing dates: 10/3/21, 15/3/21 Date of orders: 15/3/21 Decision date: 15 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bourke SC DCJ Decision: Conviction appeal dismissed. Catchwords: Crime – Conviction appeal – Commonwealth and State offences – Trespass on prohibited Commonwealth land – Failure to obey the direction of an authorised person Legislation Cited: Airport Regulations 1997 Airports Act 1996 Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 Criminal Code 1995 Evidence Act 1995 NSW Road Rules 2014 Category: Principal judgment Parties: NSW DPP – Crown Bill Nacovski - Appellant Representation: Mr S Matchett for Crown Mr Dayeian for Appellant File Number(s): 19/346702 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Bankstown Local Court Date of Decision: 30 October 2020 Before: Bugden LCM
Judgment on conviction appeal 1. This is an appeal against conviction for two offences. Firstly, an offence under section 89 (1) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914, trespass on prohibited Commonwealth land. Secondly, an offence under s 304 (1) of the NSW Road Rules 2014, failure to obey the direction of an authorised person. 2. The proceedings were defended in the Local Court, where a magistrate found the appellant guilty of both offences. 3. On the appeal however, distinct points, which were not argued in the Local Court have been put forward, suggesting that the prosecution evidence is lacking with respect to proof of certain fundamental elements of each charge. 4. This appeal is a re-hearing, and I am required to form my own judgment of the facts in so far as I can, but recognising the advantage that the Magistrate had in seeing and hearing the witnesses. That of course includes taking into account the Magistrate's assessment of the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence before him. 5. The prosecution has the onus of proof and must prove the elements of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate