Honeysett, E.J. v. Hand, D.W. & Anor [1985] FCA 74

Honeysett, E.J. v. Hand, D.W. & Anor [1985] FCA 74

Even if the first respondent took an unduly confined view of his power to permit the applicant to re-open and call evidence, it was open to view the application as a collateral attack on Lockhart, J.'s earlier decision and therefore as an abuse of process. In those circumstances, the Court's discretion under the Judicial Review Act should not be exercised to intervene in the committal proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act, 1977 to Review a Decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate in Committal Proceedings / Federal Court Judicial Review Application; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'natural Justice' 'committal Proceedings' 'refusal to Permit Evidence' 'justices Act, 1902 (n.s.w.) S.41' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['judicial Review' 'natural Justice' 'committal Proceedings' 'refusal to Permit Evidence' 'justices Act, 1902 (n.s.w.) S.41' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack']

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

Application Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act, 1977 to Review a Decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate in Committal Proceedings / Federal Court Judicial Review Application; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first respondent's refusal to permit the applicant to call evidence at the relevant stage of the committal proceedings amounted to a denial of natural justice." "Whether the applicant's attempt to re-open and call evidence, including prosecution witnesses, was a collateral attack on an earlier decision of Lockhart, J. and an abuse of process." 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 to intervene in the committal proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even if the first respondent took an unduly confined view of his power to permit the applicant to re-open and call evidence, it was open to view the application as a collateral attack on Lockhart, J.'s earlier decision and therefore as an abuse of process. In those circumstances, the Court's discretion under the Judicial Review Act should not be exercised to intervene in the committal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' 'Applicant pay the costs of the second respondent.']