The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Richard Christopher Mikhael & Ors [2015] NSWSC 819

The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Richard Christopher Mikhael & Ors [2015] NSWSC 819

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate ruled successively that there was a prima facie case and then, almost without interruption, gave herself a Prasad direction and dismissed the charges without notifying the prosecutor that such a direction was being considered or inviting submissions. This conflated the distinct concepts of no case to answer and a Prasad direction and denied the Crown procedural fairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Pursuant to S 56 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against Dismissal of Summary Proceedings / Supreme Court of New South Wales Appeal From North Sydney Local Court Orders Made on 18 August 2014
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Local Court dismissal orders set aside; proceedings remitted to the Local Court to be heard before a different Magistrate.
Legal Topics
['prasad Direction' 'no Case to Answer' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'summary Proceedings' 'intentionally Causing Fire and Being Reckless as to Its Spread']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['prasad Direction' 'no Case to Answer' 'procedural Fairness' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'summary Proceedings' 'intentionally Causing Fire and Being Reckless as to Its Spread']

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

Appeal Pursuant to S 56 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against Dismissal of Summary Proceedings / Supreme Court of New South Wales Appeal From North Sydney Local Court Orders Made on 18 August 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate denied procedural fairness by dismissing the case on the basis of a Prasad direction without notifying the prosecutor and allowing submissions opposing that direction.' 'Whether the Magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for giving herself a Prasad direction and dismissing the charges.' "Whether the Magistrate's discretion to dismiss the charges miscarried because Prasad directions should be used sparingly and the prosecution case was sufficiently strong."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Magistrate ruled successively that there was a prima facie case and then, almost without interruption, gave herself a Prasad direction and dismissed the charges without notifying the prosecutor that such a direction was being considered or inviting submissions. This conflated the distinct concepts of no case to answer and a Prasad direction and denied the Crown procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Local Court dismissal orders set aside; proceedings remitted to the Local Court to be heard before a different Magistrate.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The orders of LCM Viney made on 18 August 2014 at North Sydney Local Court dismissing proceedings against the first defendant are set aside.' 'The proceedings are remitted to the Local Court to be heard before a different Magistrate.']