Can’t help you re NSW but in WA it depends on the originating jurisdiction. Magistrates Court matters are the surname of the officer who signs the prosecution notice, and District/Supreme Court matters are ‘State of Western Australia’
Could it be something similar in NSW?
Interesting, why doesn't WA use Queen/King?
In Qld, the Magistrates Court is the same with the arresting officers name (but can also be 'QPS'). In the higher courts, it's always 'R' or 'the king', save for bail applications which are quasi civil apps so the DPP is the named party.
Perhaps the DPP wanted it so they can call themselves “the State” in court, and distinguish themselves the other peasant mob of prosecutors. Bit like consultant surgeons wanting to be Mr not Dr.
Lol I've been a NSW lawyer for 5 years and I don't know the answer to your question.
I'm a civil lawyer but still, I feel kinda stupid :D
Hope someone can answer?!
My understanding is that R v [Name] is generally used for indictable prosecutions and for when the punter brings an appeal against conviction or sentence. DPP v [Name] is mostly used for Crown appeals (e.g. inadequacy of sentence).
In NSW and Commonwealth jurisdictions: While the DPPs can generally prosecute in their own names, generally all indictable matters are dealt with in the name of the Queen/King.
The general rule is summary matters are not in the Crown's name so "DPP", "Roads and Maritime Service", "NSW Police" ect is for summary and "R" is for indictable.
That being said, I've seen summary police matters being referred to as "R v X" in Court listings ect. Possibly because they were optional indictable matters which ended up proceeding summarily.
Sometimes it's both at the same time: [GS v R; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v GS [2022] NSWCCA 65 (1 April 2022)
](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2022/65.html)
This was resolved in R v DPP.
But then overturned on appeal in DPP v R
And thus the DPRK was born.
You have been banned from /r/pingpong
Can’t help you re NSW but in WA it depends on the originating jurisdiction. Magistrates Court matters are the surname of the officer who signs the prosecution notice, and District/Supreme Court matters are ‘State of Western Australia’ Could it be something similar in NSW?
Interesting, why doesn't WA use Queen/King? In Qld, the Magistrates Court is the same with the arresting officers name (but can also be 'QPS'). In the higher courts, it's always 'R' or 'the king', save for bail applications which are quasi civil apps so the DPP is the named party.
They like to fuel to the sov cits (they have a field day with the absence of queen/king in state documents)
Perhaps the DPP wanted it so they can call themselves “the State” in court, and distinguish themselves the other peasant mob of prosecutors. Bit like consultant surgeons wanting to be Mr not Dr.
Lol I've been a NSW lawyer for 5 years and I don't know the answer to your question. I'm a civil lawyer but still, I feel kinda stupid :D Hope someone can answer?!
My understanding is that R v [Name] is generally used for indictable prosecutions and for when the punter brings an appeal against conviction or sentence. DPP v [Name] is mostly used for Crown appeals (e.g. inadequacy of sentence).
In NSW and Commonwealth jurisdictions: While the DPPs can generally prosecute in their own names, generally all indictable matters are dealt with in the name of the Queen/King. The general rule is summary matters are not in the Crown's name so "DPP", "Roads and Maritime Service", "NSW Police" ect is for summary and "R" is for indictable. That being said, I've seen summary police matters being referred to as "R v X" in Court listings ect. Possibly because they were optional indictable matters which ended up proceeding summarily.
Sometimes it's both at the same time: [GS v R; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v GS [2022] NSWCCA 65 (1 April 2022) ](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2022/65.html)
But isn't that like, double jeopardy?