Huynh v Attorney General (NSW) (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 268

Huynh v Attorney General (NSW) (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 268

Garling J did not commit jurisdictional error by considering legal questions in the course of the administrative function under ss 78 and 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The statutory task was to decide whether there was a doubt or question as to the Applicant's guilt, and Garling J was entitled to conclude that there was none. The Applicant's defence that he was not party to the conspiracy was put to the jury, the June importation was not an element of the offence charged, and even acceptance of the Applicant's denial of involvement in the June importation would not raise a doubt or question as to guilt of the conspiracy offence. The application disclosed no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of a Decision Refusing an Application for a Post Appeal Inquiry Under Part 7 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'judicial Review' 'post Conviction Inquiry' 'conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Precursor' 'administrative Decision by Judge Acting Persona Designata']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'error of Law' 'judicial Review' 'post Conviction Inquiry' 'conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Precursor' 'administrative Decision by Judge Acting Persona Designata']

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

Judicial Review of a Decision Refusing an Application for a Post Appeal Inquiry Under Part 7 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Garling J committed jurisdictional error by determining legal questions while performing an administrative function under ss 78 and 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).' "Whether Garling J erred in law by failing to apply relevant principles concerning the applicant's defence allegedly not being put to the jury and proof of a conspiratorial agreement." "Whether the Part 7 application raised a doubt or question as to the applicant's guilt within the meaning of s 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Garling J did not commit jurisdictional error by considering legal questions in the course of the administrative function under ss 78 and 79 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). The statutory task was to decide whether there was a doubt or question as to the Applicant's guilt, and Garling J was entitled to conclude that there was none. The Applicant's defence that he was not party to the conspiracy was put to the jury, the June importation was not an element of the offence charged, and even acceptance of the Applicant's denial of involvement in the June importation would not raise a doubt or question as to guilt of the conspiracy offence. The application disclosed no...

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the Amended Summons with the Applicant to pay the costs of the Attorney-General (Cth).' 'No order as to the costs of the Attorney General (NSW).']