Appeals to the District Court Against Local Court Convictions in NSW

A former NRL player who went on to become a professional boxer has successfully appealed his conviction over allegations of breaking and entering, with the appeal court finding ‘suspicion is no substitute for proof’.

In the Local Court

A magistrate in Burwood Local Court found 29-year old former Sydney Roosters player Willis Pele Meehan guilty of breaking, entering and committing a serious indictable offence – namely stealing – over allegations he broke into a smash repair shop in Sydney on 14 October 2022 and stole a number of tools including a leaf blower, sander and spray painters.

The evidence against Mr Meehan was largely circumstantial, including ‘identification evidence’ such as three sets of CCTV footage – two from the store and one from a neighbouring business – allegedly depicting a man said to resemble the former football player, as well as palm prints on a set of drawers and the back office of the store, which the prosecution was unable to prove were left there at any particular time.

Meehan was formally convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison in February 2024 and immediately lodged an appeal against conviction to Downing Centre District Court.

District Court Appeal

The hearing of the appeal came before her Honour Judge Robyn Tupman who made clear that in circumstantial cases such as the one before the court:

“The Crown must prove that the only rational inference from the combination of circumstances is that, taken together, this means (Mr Meehan) is the person who broke in and committed this offence”. 

Her Honour proceeded to find that:

“There is doubt about whether or not the person shown in exhibit 2 (CCTV from the shop) is the same person as in exhibit 3 (CCTV from next door). There is also no explanation for what appears to be a more than three hour time gap in the footage.”

“There is no evidence of the person (in CCTV) or anyone carrying out a large quantity of tools, and the backpack worn by the person is not big enough to transport the sort of items stolen… with the exception of the leaf blower”.

Her Honour ultimately found that the prosecution had failed to discharge its onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no hypothesis consistent with innocence, considering the lack of proof regarding the timing of the palm prints and the fact they were found on moveable items.

She therefore quashed the Local Court conviction and dismissed the charges.

Appeals to the District Court in New South Wales

A person who is convicted of a criminal offence in the Local Court has a right to appeal to the District Court of New South Wales.

The deadline for filing an appeal is normally 28 days from the date the matter is finalised, which is normally when the sentence has been handed down. However, the deadline can be extended to three months after finalisation if this is in the interests of justice. 

Also, the deadline is two years if the defendant was not before the court when convicted – something known as an ‘annulment application’.

A fresh review of the original evidence

Appeals from the Local to the District Court are known as hearings de novo; which means the District Court considers the case afresh, rather than has to determine whether the Local Court has made an error of law or fact.

That said, appeals that follow a Local Court defended hearing – known as appeals against conviction – are primarily determined by reviewing and making written and/or verbal submissions on the transcript of the Local Court hearing, and any fresh material that may be adduced by way of a notice of motion and affidavit in support.

Parker warnings

It is important to be aware that the District Court judge is only permitted to impose a penalty that is harsher than that which was imposed in the Local Court if he or she first gives the defence what is known as a ‘Parker warning’.

There is no prescribed way of giving such a warning, but it will normally take the form of something like:

• ‘I am considering a harsher penalty. Are you sure you wish to proceed with the appeal?’, or
• ‘I am of the view the Local Court penalty was too lenient. Are you sure you want to proceed?’.

If a Parker warning is given, it is normally prudent to withdraw the appeal at that stage; however, there are exceptions to this rule.

One of these exceptions is if the judge indicates that he or she wishes to increase the prison term imposed in the Local Court but deal with it by way of an alternative to a full time custodial sentence eg impose an Intensive Correction Order rather than a full time prison sentence.

In practice, the existence of Parker warnings means that an experienced lawyer will be able to ensure that his or her client will never receive a harsher sentence than that which was imposed in the Local Court.

In determining an appeal, the District Court may exercise any function that the Local Court could have exercised in the original Local Court proceedings.

Need an appeal lawyer?

If you believe you were unfairly found guilty in a New South Wales Local Court, or if the penalty imposed was too harsh, call Sydney Criminal Lawyers 24/7 on (02) 9261 8881 to secure the services of expert appeal lawyers who will fight to have the initial decision overturned, whether that be the quashing of the conviction or reduction of the penalty.