Citation: [2019] NSWDC 309
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 15 April 2019
Judge(s): Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The Crown applied for leave to file an indictment in proceedings before the District Court. The application arose because the indictment could not be lodged through the court's electronic case management system, JusticeLink.
The programming limitation at issue was JusticeLink's inability to process an indictment where a single count contains two different law part codes. This same problem had been identified and addressed by Colefax SC DCJ in an earlier decision, R v AC [2018] NSWDC 127, nearly a year before the present application.
The concern raised by the judge, shared by senior registry staff, was that workarounds designed to push indictments through JusticeLink (such as omitting end dates) would produce inaccurate entries in the court's computer records.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown should be granted leave to physically file an indictment that cannot be electronically filed due to a JusticeLink programming limitation.
- Whether the judge's associate or registry staff should be directed to manually enter the indictment into the JusticeLink system.
Decision
Issue 1: Leave to physically file the indictment
Colefax SC DCJ granted leave to the Crown to physically file the indictment in court, adopting the same approach taken in R v AC (at [5]). The electronic filing pathway was not available because JusticeLink, as currently programmed, cannot accommodate an indictment count with two different law part codes (at [2]).
Issue 2: Entry of the indictment into JusticeLink
The judge directed his associate not to manually process the indictment's entry into JusticeLink, citing the risk that doing so would create an erroneous record in the court's system (at [6]). The judge reiterated his earlier view, shared by senior registry staff, that removing an end date from an indictment entry would result in an inaccurate JusticeLink entry (at [4]). The question of whether any registry staff would enter the indictment into JusticeLink was left to the Parramatta District Court registrar to determine (at [7]).
Orders Made
- Leave granted to the Crown to physically file the indictment in court.
- The judge's associate directed not to manually process the indictment's entry into the JusticeLink system.
- Whether any member of the Parramatta District Court registry enters the indictment into JusticeLink is a matter for the Registrar.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed, for the second time in under a year, that JusticeLink's programming cannot handle an indictment count bearing two different law part codes, necessitating physical filing as a workaround (at [2]-[3]).
- A known system limitation, identified as early as March 2018, had remained unresolved by the JusticeLink support team by the time of this April 2019 decision (at [3]).
- Colefax SC DCJ maintained his earlier view that entering an indictment into JusticeLink by removing end dates would produce an erroneous court record, a concern shared by senior registry staff across multiple registries (at [4]).
- Where electronic filing is not possible due to a system defect, the District Court has the ability to grant leave for physical filing in court (at [5]).
- Responsibility for deciding whether registry staff enter a physically filed indictment into JusticeLink rests with the relevant District Court registrar, not the presiding judge or the judge's associate (at [6]-[7]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Not stated
Cases
- R v AC [2018] NSWDC 127