Tez v Longley and DPP (NSW) [2004] NSWSC 74

Tez v Longley and DPP (NSW) [2004] NSWSC 74

Magistrate Longley considered the written materials placed before him, applied the correct s 48E test, and gave adequate brief reasons. The proposed cross-examination appeared directed to the complainant's credibility and knowledge of the defendant, which did not constitute special reasons. The Magistrate could not be criticised for not considering witness statements not provided to him. No error of law or jurisdictional error was established, and the discretionary relief sought was not warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Review of Magistrate's Decision in Committal Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Prerogative Relief / Summons Challenging Refusal of Application Under S 48 E(2)(a) of the Justices Act 1902 (nsw)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['committal Proceedings' 'cross Examination of Alleged Victim' 'special Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'mandamus' 'declaratory Relief' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['committal Proceedings' 'cross Examination of Alleged Victim' 'special Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'mandamus' 'declaratory Relief' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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

Review of Magistrate's Decision in Committal Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Prerogative Relief / Summons Challenging Refusal of Application Under S 48 E(2)(a) of the Justices Act 1902 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Magistrate Longley failed to consider evidence in support of the plaintiff's application under s 48E of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW)." 'Whether Magistrate Longley erred in law in refusing to require the alleged victim to attend for cross-examination at committal proceedings.' 'Whether Magistrate Longley failed to give adequate reasons for refusing the application.' 'Whether any error amounted to jurisdictional error justifying declaratory relief or an order in the nature of mandamus.']

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrate Longley considered the written materials placed before him, applied the correct s 48E test, and gave adequate brief reasons. The proposed cross-examination appeared directed to the complainant's credibility and knowledge of the defendant, which did not constitute special reasons. The Magistrate could not be criticised for not considering witness statements not provided to him. No error of law or jurisdictional error was established, and the discretionary relief sought was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the application."]