Toth v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWCA 253

Toth v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWCA 253

The Amended Summons was dismissed because the applicant had not asked Sweeney DCJ to submit questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal and therefore no error was shown; the challenged District Court rulings were interlocutory and lacked the necessary finality for s 69 relief; no jurisdictional error warranting intervention was established; and, in any event, discretionary considerations including the need to avoid fragmentation of criminal proceedings required refusal of relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of Two Interlocutory District Court Decisions in a Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'certiorari' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'tendency Evidence' 'interlocutory Criminal Proceedings' 'fragmentation of Criminal Proceedings' 'submission of Questions of Law to the Court of Criminal Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law' 'evidence' 'appellate Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'certiorari' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'tendency Evidence' 'interlocutory Criminal Proceedings' 'fragmentation of Criminal Proceedings' 'submission of Questions of Law to the Court of Criminal Appeal']

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

Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) of Two Interlocutory District Court Decisions in a Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Sweeney DCJ erred by not submitting questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal under s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).' 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness in relation to the District Court decisions granting leave to adduce tendency evidence and refusing to preclude counsel for the DPP from continuing to appear.' 'Whether the interlocutory District Court decisions had the necessary quality of finality to attract relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).' 'Whether the Court should refuse judicial review relief on discretionary grounds, including the need to avoid fragmentation of criminal proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Summons was dismissed because the applicant had not asked Sweeney DCJ to submit questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal and therefore no error was shown; the challenged District Court rulings were interlocutory and lacked the necessary finality for s 69 relief; no jurisdictional error warranting intervention was established; and, in any event, discretionary considerations including the need to avoid fragmentation of criminal proceedings required refusal of relief.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's Amended Summons for judicial relief is dismissed with costs."]