Mok v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Federal jurisdiction – Application of State laws – Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) ("SEPA"), s 89(4) – Where appellant arrested in Victoria pursuant to warrant issued in New South Wales – Where order made under s 83(8)(b) of SEPA to return appellant in custody to New South Wales – Where appellant charged with attempting to escape lawful custody under s 310D of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ("Crimes Act") – Whether s 89(4) of SEPA applied s 310D of Crimes Act as surrogate federal law – Whether content of applied State law altered – Whether prosecution required to prove all elements of offence under State law.

Words and phrases – "competent authority", "correctional centre", "court", "escape lawful custody", "inmate", "law of a State", "surrogate federal law".

Constitution – ss 51(xxiv), 52(i).

Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) – s 4.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – ss 68, 79.

Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) – ss 8(4), 81A, 82, 83, 89.

Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) – s 33(1).

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – Pt 1A, ss 310A, 310D.

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 3(1), 4.

Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) – ss 5, 12.