A Barrister's Blog

When a judgment starts with “several remarkable things happened in the Dubbo Local Court that day” it’s a fair indication that it’s blog worthy. 

The case involved a Mr Peckham who was arrested for a breach of an ADVO at around 10:50am. He was bail refused and appeared in the Local Court at Dubbo by video link at 2:44pm. Some 3 minutes later, his case was over and he was released from custody. Hamill J in the Supreme Court (see Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Peckham [2022] NSWSC 713) described the proceedings as a travesty. 

The following occurred:

1. There was no Prosecutor present, either in the courtroom or via a video link, at any stage of the proceedings. In fact the Prosecutor became aware of the proceedings at 3:06pm when she was notified that Mr Peckham was ready for release;
2. the Magistrate had no court papers. His Honour had no Court Attendance Notice or Facts Sheet and did not have access to Mr Peckham’s criminal history;
3. The Magistrate gave no reasons for disposing of the case under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). In fact it appears that the Magistrate (after hearing from Mr Packham about his job and his “L plates”) said: “Well I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. Give you a break. Record a conviction and send you on your way.”
4. Mr Peckham was represented by a solicitor from the ALS who had commenced practice just a few weeks earlier, who was barely given the opportunity to be heard. All she was able to say as to the appropriate penalty was “[t]he defence would be asking for a fine only punishment”; and
5. While the ALS solicitor agreed with the proposition that the case could be “finalise[d]”, it was not explicitly stated that Mr Peckham was entering a plea of guilty. This occurred in the absence of both the defendant himself and the Prosecutor.

The DPP appealed the decision on the basis of failure to give procedural fairness and lack of reasons.

In relation to the lack of reasons, his Honour noted that: “This is not a case where there was any debate about the contents of the reasons or whether they were adequate. There are many cases resolved in the conduct of busy Local Court lists where brief, even scanty, reasons may suffice.”

However, his Honour did have some kind words for the ALS solicitor. At [15]:

15. The ALS solicitor said in her affidavit: “It happened very quickly, and I had trouble keeping up with what was being said between Magistrate Wilson and Mr Peckham. I did not interject in what was happening because I did not want to disrespect the Magistrate and because I was nervous.”

16. Her affidavit also indicates that she was 22 years old at the time and had only been practicing for a few weeks. There is some irony in the fact that a 22-year-old solicitor did not intervene because she did not want to disrespect the Magistrate’s office, while the senior holder of the office seemed prepared to disrespect the entire, if ephemeral, process.

Several remarkable things indeed!

Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.