Crowe v DPP (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 747

Crowe v DPP (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 747

Once a bill of indictment has been found by the Director of Public Prosecutions, any utility in remitting the matter to the Local Court for reopening committal proceedings is lost, as the original committal decision is overtaken and any new decision would not affect the indictment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial reasons for cross-examination under s 91, as the application was overly broad, non-specific, and lacked defined parameters. Pre-trial processes in the Supreme Court offer sufficient opportunity to address fairness, and the authorities confirm restraint should be exercised in disturbing the conduct of criminal trials when a bill has been found. Thus, no miscarriage...

Parties
Plaintiff: Amanda Crowe; First Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Second Defendant: The Local Court of NSW
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Supreme Court Post Committal, Pre Trial
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Section 91 Application for Cross Examination, Ex Officio Indictment, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Intervention Threshold, Pre Trial Procedures
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Committal Proceedings Section 91 Application for Cross Examination Ex Officio Indictment Supervisory Jurisdiction Intervention Threshold +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Crowe

Plaintiff

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

First Defendant

The Local Court of NSW

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Supreme Court Post Committal, Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court should grant judicial review and quash a magistrate's refusal to allow cross-examination of Crown witnesses under s 91 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 after a bill of indictment has been found by the DPP
  2. 2 Whether remitting the matter to the Local Court would have practical utility once an indictment is found
  3. 3 Whether substantial reasons existed for cross-examination under s 91

Ratio Decidendi

Once a bill of indictment has been found by the Director of Public Prosecutions, any utility in remitting the matter to the Local Court for reopening committal proceedings is lost, as the original committal decision is overtaken and any new decision would not affect the indictment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial reasons for cross-examination under s 91, as the application was overly broad, non-specific, and lacked defined parameters. Pre-trial processes in the Supreme Court offer sufficient opportunity to address fairness, and the authorities confirm restraint should be exercised in disturbing the conduct of criminal trials when a bill has been found. Thus, no miscarriage...

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs.