Potier v DPP [2001] NSWSC 514

Potier v DPP [2001] NSWSC 514

The Magistrate, in refusing to allow the calling and cross-examination of certain witnesses, applied the statutory tests as set out under s 48E of the Justices Act and relevant authorities. This did not amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction or jurisdictional error. Furthermore, as the bills of indictment had already been found and the committal proceedings concluded, any order quashing or remitting the matter would be futile. Thus, neither certiorari nor mandamus lay to disturb the Magistrate’s decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Committal Proceedings Application for Judicial Review / Application for Orders in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['committal Proceedings' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'cross Examination of Witnesses' 'jurisdictional Error' 'prerogative Writs']
['criminal Law' 'judicial Review'] ['committal Proceedings' 'certiorari' 'mandamus' 'cross Examination of Witnesses' 'jurisdictional Error' 'prerogative Writs']

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

Criminal Law Committal Proceedings Application for Judicial Review / Application for Orders in the Nature of Certiorari and Mandamus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Magistrate's refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses under section 48E of the Justices Act was subject to judicial review by certiorari or mandamus" 'Whether the Magistrate misunderstood or failed to exercise jurisdiction so as to warrant prerogative relief' 'Whether any relief would be futile due to indictment and trial commencement']

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate, in refusing to allow the calling and cross-examination of certain witnesses, applied the statutory tests as set out under s 48E of the Justices Act and relevant authorities. This did not amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction or jurisdictional error. Furthermore, as the bills of indictment had already been found and the committal proceedings concluded, any order quashing or remitting the matter would be futile. Thus, neither certiorari nor mandamus lay to disturb the Magistrate’s decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.']