Markovic v R (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 354

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Markovic v R (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 354 Hearing dates: 11 August 2022 Date of orders: 11 August 2022 Decision date: 11 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennett SC DCJ Decision: Remit the proceedings to the Local Court at the Downing Centre on 18 August 2022 for further management of the proceedings Catchwords: APPEALS — Jurisdiction of appellate court — District Court CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court Legislation Cited: Road Transport Act 2013 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Duro George Markovic (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) Representation: Sasha Milanovic (counsel for the Appellant)

Stephen Makin (solicitor for the Respondent (ODPP)) File Number(s): 2021/00071644

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

Introduction 1. On 16 September 2021 Duro George Markovic was convicted before a magistrate in the Local Court in the Downing Centre of driving a vehicle with an illicit drug present in his blood, a second offence, contrary to s 111(1)(a) Road Transport Act 2013. The date of the offence was 28 January 2021. His penalty was a fine of $1,100 and a disqualification of 12 months dating from 16 September 2021. 2. He was not present in Court when the conviction was entered against him and a penalty imposed, thus as the Court file has informed me, he was dealt with in his absence.

The Notice of Appeal 1. He lodged a notice of appeal to the District Court on 7 October 2021. These asserts: "I am appealing on the following grounds: I am appealing against the above conviction, and sentence BECAUSE I AM NOT GUILTY AND BECAUSE THE SENTENCE IS TOO SEVERE." 1. Endorsed on the bottom of the document in handwriting is the following: "Client advised to lodge an annulment application. Client refused to lodge such application and insisted to lodge a District Court appeal." 1. There is a signature, the date 7/10/2021 and "Wyong Local Court". 2. The use of the term "client" in respect of the appellant does not suggest to me that that was made by a solicitor but was rather made by the person with whom he dealt in the Local Court at Wyong in the registry for his or her purposes.