Reznitsky v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 79

Reznitsky v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2014] NSWCA 79

Judge Hughes did not provide the applicant with a fair opportunity to present submissions and explain his failure to appear, so there was no hearing within the meaning of s 22(3) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. That denial of procedural fairness constituted jurisdictional error, warranting quashing of the District Court orders and remittal of the s 22 application for determination according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Prerogative Relief Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Court of Appeal Determination of Application to Quash District Court Orders
Outcome
Application granted; District Court orders quashed; s 22 application remitted to the District Court; fifth respondent ordered to pay costs to the extent recoverable.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'denial of Procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'application to Set Aside Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Appear']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'denial of Procedural Fairness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'certiorari' 'application to Set Aside Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to Appear']

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 Application for Prerogative Relief Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Court of Appeal Determination of Application to Quash District Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Judge Hughes denied the applicant procedural fairness when dismissing the applicant's s 22 application." 'Whether any denial of procedural fairness amounted to jurisdictional error justifying prerogative relief in the nature of certiorari.' 'Whether the District Court orders made on 11 November 2009 should be quashed and the s 22 application remitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Judge Hughes did not provide the applicant with a fair opportunity to present submissions and explain his failure to appear, so there was no hearing within the meaning of s 22(3) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. That denial of procedural fairness constituted jurisdictional error, warranting quashing of the District Court orders and remittal of the s 22 application for determination according to law.

Court Disposition

Application granted; District Court orders quashed; s 22 application remitted to the District Court; fifth respondent ordered to pay costs to the extent recoverable.

Orders

  • ['That the orders of his Honour Judge Hughes made on 11 November 2009 be quashed.' "That the applicant's application to the District Court pursuant to s 22(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 filed by the applicant on or about 3 July 2009 be remitted to the District Court to be determined according to...