CASSELL v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS [2000] NSWCA 226

CASSELL v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS [2000] NSWCA 226

The summons was dismissed because the proposed questions sought to re-argue matters already decided adversely to the claimant by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court, and insofar as question 3 went beyond those decisions it concerned Downs DCJ's fact-finding about the available inference of a valid ICAC hearing, not a question of law capable of being raised under s5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief / Amended Summons in the Court of Appeal Challenging the Refusal of Downs DCJ to State a Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal Under S5 B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Outcome
Summons for prerogative relief dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'prerogative Relief' 'false Evidence Before the Independent Commission Against Corruption' 'question of Law Versus Question of Fact' 'no Case to Answer' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['stated Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'prerogative Relief' 'false Evidence Before the Independent Commission Against Corruption' 'question of Law Versus Question of Fact' 'no Case to Answer' 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Relief / Amended Summons in the Court of Appeal Challenging the Refusal of Downs DCJ to State a Case to the Court of Criminal Appeal Under S5 B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Downs DCJ should be ordered to hear and determine according to law the claimant's application under s5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for questions of law to be submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal." 'Whether the proposed questions of law sought to re-argue matters already decided adversely to the claimant in the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court.' 'Whether the question about the inference of a determination by the Commissioner under s30(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 was a question of law or a question of fact.' 'Whether the refusal to state a further case justified prerogative relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the proposed questions sought to re-argue matters already decided adversely to the claimant by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court, and insofar as question 3 went beyond those decisions it concerned Downs DCJ's fact-finding about the available inference of a valid ICAC hearing, not a question of law capable of being raised under s5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Court Disposition

Summons for prerogative relief dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed with costs.']