Thompson v DPP [2014] NSWSC 522

Thompson v DPP [2014] NSWSC 522

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there were 'special reasons' in the interests of justice requiring the victim DH to attend for cross-examination at committal. The alleged inconsistencies between witnesses were not such as to mandate cross-examination and the magistrate's approach was supported by established principles. No jurisdictional error or legal error requiring relief was established. There is no appeal as of right or with leave under section 53 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) from a magistrate's refusal to make a direction under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application for Prerogative Relief / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal and Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed; costs order against Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['committal Proceedings' 'cross Examination of Victim' 'prerogative Relief' 'appeal From Magistrate' 'consent in Sexual Offences' 'special Reasons in Interests of Justice']
['criminal Law'] ['committal Proceedings' 'cross Examination of Victim' 'prerogative Relief' 'appeal From Magistrate' 'consent in Sexual Offences' 'special Reasons in Interests of Justice']

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 and Application for Prerogative Relief / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal and Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the magistrate erred in refusing to direct the attendance of the victim (DH) for cross-examination at committal proceedings' "Whether there are 'special reasons' in the interests of justice requiring the victim's attendance under section 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)" 'Whether an error of law or jurisdictional error was committed by the magistrate' 'Whether prerogative relief is available for the refusal to direct attendance for cross-examination' 'Whether an appeal lies under section 53 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) for a refusal to make a direction under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there were 'special reasons' in the interests of justice requiring the victim DH to attend for cross-examination at committal. The alleged inconsistencies between witnesses were not such as to mandate cross-examination and the magistrate's approach was supported by established principles. No jurisdictional error or legal error requiring relief was established. There is no appeal as of right or with leave under section 53 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) from a magistrate's refusal to make a direction under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; costs order against Plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed.' "The Plaintiff is to pay the First Defendant's costs."]