AB v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 73

AB v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 73

AB failed to establish actual bias or apprehended bias by the primary judge. Assertions about the primary judge and earlier judges lacked foundation, and the primary judge's statement that AB's claims were "fanciful and ridiculous", considered with the evidence including the Facebook message and LR's evidence, did not provide a basis on which a fair minded lay observer would apprehend that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the appeal. AB was not entitled to relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), so the summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Summons in the Court of Appeal Seeking to Set Aside a District Court Decision Dismissing an Appeal From a Local Court Conviction
Outcome
Time for filing the summons was extended nunc pro tunc, but the summons was dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent and publication restrictions ordered.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'appeal From Local Court to District Court' 'hiv Disclosure Before Sexual Intercourse' 'extension of Time' 'publication Restriction']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law' 'public Health Law'] ['judicial Review' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias' 'appeal From Local Court to District Court' 'hiv Disclosure Before Sexual Intercourse' 'extension of Time' 'publication Restriction']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) / Summons in the Court of Appeal Seeking to Set Aside a District Court Decision Dismissing an Appeal From a Local Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time for filing the summons should be extended notwithstanding non-compliance with r 59.10.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the District Court judge's decision was affected by actual bias or apprehended bias." 'Whether AB was entitled to relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) setting aside the District Court decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

AB failed to establish actual bias or apprehended bias by the primary judge. Assertions about the primary judge and earlier judges lacked foundation, and the primary judge's statement that AB's claims were "fanciful and ridiculous", considered with the evidence including the Facebook message and LR's evidence, did not provide a basis on which a fair minded lay observer would apprehend that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the appeal. AB was not entitled to relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), so the summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Time for filing the summons was extended nunc pro tunc, but the summons was dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the first respondent and publication restrictions ordered.

Orders

  • ['Extend nunc pro tunc the time for filing the summons up to and including 19 October 2015.' 'Summons filed on 19 October 2015 be dismissed.' 'Applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.' "Publication of the name, and the disclosure of any other information tending to reveal the identity, of the applicant (who...