DPP v CHRESTA [2005] NSWSC 233

Reported Decision : 152 A Crim R 379 62 NSWLR 604

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : DPP v CHRESTA [2005] NSWSC 233

HEARING DATE(S) : 14/04/2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 14 March 2005

JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1

DECISION : Declaration in accordance with paragraph 2 of the summons; otherwise summons dismissed

CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - Traffic Offences - Use of a hand held mobile phone - When criminal.

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 LEGISLATION CITED : Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001

PARTIES : DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v Nathalie CHRESTA

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC No 13744/2004

Plaintiff: Ian Bourke COUNSEL : Defendant: In person

SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: S C. Kavanagh, acting solicitor for the DPP.

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Mr A W Railton LCM

- 7 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DUTY LIST

Greg James J

MONDAY 14 MARCH 2005

13744 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v NATHALIE CHRESTA

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales in respect of the decision of a Local Court magistrate made on 26 July 2004 dismissing a charge brought against the defendant, Miss Nathalie Chresta, for a breach of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999, which regulation incorporates into the law of New South Wales the Australian Road Rules. The regulation is made under the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999. 2 The appeal is brought as of right under s 56 of the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001. Such an appeal may be brought "only on a ground that involves a question of law alone". On determining such an appeal, the Court may set aside the order made by the magistrate and make such other order as it thinks just. 3 The magistrate in dismissing the charge acquitted the defendant. The magistrate had held a prima facie case against the defendant on the charge brought against her. That charge is referred to in the Court attendance notice, which is annexure "A" to the affidavit of Rodney Vincent Paul, solicitor, sworn 11 November 2004. 4 The details of the offence there shown allege that the defendant did "drive using hand-held phone". (Police officers gave evidence before the magistrate that they observed the defendant holding a mobile phone to her ear whilst the vehicle was in motion.)