Campbell v Richardson [2008] NSWSC 122

Campbell v Richardson [2008] NSWSC 122

The plaintiff did not identify particular factual matters requiring examination, why cross-examination of the complainant was necessary in the interests of justice, or any solid grounds showing that her attendance would significantly contribute to a fair trial or create a real possibility of discharge. The asserted favourable interpretation of the complainant's statement and the claimed need to clarify matters did not constitute special reasons under s 93. Read in the context of the submissions, the Magistrate's reasons disclosed the basis for refusing the application, and no wrong test, constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, error of law, or failure to consider relevant matters...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Proceedings Challenging a Local Court Refusal to Direct an Alleged Victim to Attend to Give Oral Evidence in Committal Proceedings / Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal and Alternative Relief Under the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 1991 and the Supreme Court Act 1970
Outcome
The amended summons was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['committal Proceedings' 'attendance of Alleged Victim Witnesses' 'special Reasons Under S 93 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['committal Proceedings' 'attendance of Alleged Victim Witnesses' 'special Reasons Under S 93 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'adequacy of Reasons' 'sexual Offences']

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

Supreme Court Proceedings Challenging a Local Court Refusal to Direct an Alleged Victim to Attend to Give Oral Evidence in Committal Proceedings / Amended Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal and Alternative Relief Under the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 1991 and the Supreme Court Act 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate erred in refusing to direct the complainant to attend to give oral evidence under s 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.' 'Whether there were special reasons why the complainant should, in the interests of justice, attend for cross-examination in the committal proceedings.' 'Whether the Magistrate failed to consider the asserted weakness of the prosecution case and the alleged real possibility that the plaintiff would be discharged if the complainant were cross-examined.' 'Whether the Magistrate gave inadequate reasons or applied the wrong test.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not identify particular factual matters requiring examination, why cross-examination of the complainant was necessary in the interests of justice, or any solid grounds showing that her attendance would significantly contribute to a fair trial or create a real possibility of discharge. The asserted favourable interpretation of the complainant's statement and the claimed need to clarify matters did not constitute special reasons under s 93. Read in the context of the submissions, the Magistrate's reasons disclosed the basis for refusing the application, and no wrong test, constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, error of law, or failure to consider relevant matters...

Court Disposition

The amended summons was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons is dismissed.' 'The parties are to confer on a timetable for submissions on costs to be lodged with the associate within 28 days.']