Nan v DPP & Anor S262/1999 [2000] HCATrans 405 (27 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S262 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

VASILE NAN

Applicant

and

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

First Respondent

THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 27 JUNE 2000, AT 2.19 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR V. NAN appeared in person.

MS CELLA BARUCH sworn to interpret.

MR R.D. ELLIS: I appear for the respondent, your Honour. (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW))

GLEESON CJ: Mr Nan, come up to the Bar table, please.

(to interpreter): Would you mind translating for Mr Nan what we say to him, please.

Now, what is it you would like to say to us, Mr Nan.

MR NAN (through interpreter): Does he have to repeat what in Romania.....or whatever happened before this hearing?

Honourable Court and honourable jury, I am here now for the third time in front of a Justice and the right decision was not taken. Now I consider that a rightful and legal decision will be taken according to the law, because I got to consider myself completely non-guilty in front of the law.

In this case, to which the police from Katoomba sent me in front of the law, because the decision taken by the judge in Katoomba was not legal, it was not correct in front of the law. Then I appealed and they sent me to the judge in front of the judge in Parramatta and, again, the judge in Parramatta took not a legal and not a correct decision because he followed the decision of the judge from Katoomba.

GAUDRON J: The question is what is the error in that judgment?

MR NAN (through interpreter): Because they judged me in a manner which I was not really in - according to what I did. I did have the licence at that time, my driving licence was legal. Because they judged me as if I, when I was driving, did not have the licence but I had at that moment - my licence was legal and valid. Because I had a licence from Queensland which was not cancelled and did not expire. It was valid. I came to New South Wales for a certain period, temporary, to work.

GAUDRON J: But it was found against Mr Nan that he had been in New South Wales for more than three months, is that not correct?

MR NAN (through interpreter): I came in February in New South Wales, but after that I had to go to South Australia and the State of Victoria to look for a truck and I could show that although I was called in front of the court after four months, I had not been constantly in New South Wales. I had been also in other States looking for a truck.

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, can I ask again Mr Nan to repeat, because it is a very confused sentence.

GLEESON CJ: Yes.

MR NAN (through interpreter): I came here and I found a temporary job in New South Wales. I did not come here to be a resident of this State. I was staying here to work until October and then, in October, I had planned to go to Queensland for the harvest. After harvesting the wheat in Queensland, I was going afterwards to South Australia for two months, also for the harvesting of the wheat.

GLEESON CJ: This present application is an attempt to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The Court of Appeal of New South Wales was hearing an appeal from a District Court judge but it was not reviewing the facts of the case, it was inquiring whether there was an error of law. What error do you say there is in the decision of the Court of Appeal?

MR NAN (through interpreter): I am sorry, is it a District Court decision?

GLEESON CJ: No. That is the problem. The District Court judge was hearing an appeal from a magistrate and he was reconsidering the facts of the case. But the Court of Appeal, from whom you seek to appeal to this Court, was inquiring whether there had been an error of law.

MR NAN (through interpreter): It was a very big error in the decision taken by the - - -

THE INTERPRETER: Mr Nan does not know if you refer to the Katoomba magistrate or to the Parramatta.

GLEESON CJ: Neither.

MR NAN (through interpreter): There was an error in each decision, from the magistrate in Katoomba and from the District Court in Parramatta. The court in Katoomba made its decision based upon the fact that I did not have a licence - driving without a licence. In the District Court in Parramatta, they based themselves upon the fact that I was a resident of New South Wales when I resided in Park Street, Kenthurst, in Dural area. I indicated that residence, that I was resident there, only to transfer the licence from Queensland to New South Wales. But I did not live there. I lived in the truck. Because the inspector of the RTA told me that it is better to transfer my licence from Queensland to New South Wales because it would be better.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. Now, is there anything you want to add as to why there was an error on the part of the Court of Appeal?

MR NAN (through interpreter): The error in Katoomba was that I was accused and judged that I was illegally driving without a licence and Mr Judge Nield in Parramatta court said exactly the same thing, that I drove illegally.

GLEESON CJ: Do you have anything to say about whether there was an error on the part of the Court of Appeal?

MR NAN (through interpreter): Yes, there was a big error. In Katoomba the error was that they said I was driving illegally; the same in the District Court, because I came here only temporarily to work. Because the licence of Queensland gave me the right to maintain this driving licence for a certain time while I was working here.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. Yes.

MR NAN (through interpreter): I think that from a legal point of view I was not illegally driving, I was not disqualified. Now I appealed again in front of the law and in the name of justice to show that I was in my right and I was driving legally with a licence and I expect this to be recognised and the decision to be a legal and a right one.

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. If that covers all the arguments you want to put to us, then you can take a seat.

We do not need to hear you, Mr Ellis.

This is an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal given on Thursday, 25 November 1999. The Court is of the view that there is insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal to warrant a grant of special leave. The application is refused.

We will adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 2.38 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED