Murphy, L.K. v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [1985] FCA 196

Murphy, L.K. v. Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [1985] FCA 196

The Court will not review the committal decisions concerning the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, as this case does not present exceptional circumstances. The sufficiency of evidence requires rulings on admissibility and factual matters appropriate for the trial judge, and the application for review is dismissed in accordance with judicial cautions against interfering in criminal proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Lionel Keith Murphy; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: Arthur Riedel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 1985
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Review of Committal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings, Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, Interpretation of 'likely' Under Justices Act S.41(6)
Administrative Law Criminal Law Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice Interpretation of 'likely' Under Justices Act S.41(6)

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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lionel Keith Murphy

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

Arthur Riedel

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Review of Committal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether committal decisions under s.41 Justices Act 1902 (NSW) are reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
  2. 2 Proper construction and application of sub-ss.41(2) and (6) of the Justices Act
  3. 3 Meaning of 'likely' in s.41(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court will not review the committal decisions concerning the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, as this case does not present exceptional circumstances. The sufficiency of evidence requires rulings on admissibility and factual matters appropriate for the trial judge, and the application for review is dismissed in accordance with judicial cautions against interfering in criminal proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application.