NW v George; SW v George [2016] NSWSC 296

NW v George; SW v George [2016] NSWSC 296

The Magistrate had appropriate regard to the considerations in s 24(4), the evidence supported the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to suspect both plaintiffs had committed the offence, NW's status as a serving police officer was not a relevant consideration weighing against the order, and the delay in making the applications was supported by an acceptable explanation. No error of law or House v The King discretionary error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Against Orders for Non Intimate Forensic Procedures / Supreme Court Determination of Summonses Challenging Local Court Orders on a Question of Law
Outcome
Summonses dismissed; Local Court orders confirmed with amendment; plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['forensic Procedure' 'non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'buccal Swab' 'reasonable Grounds to Suspect' 'discretionary Error' 'delay']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['forensic Procedure' 'non Intimate Forensic Procedure' 'buccal Swab' 'reasonable Grounds to Suspect' 'discretionary Error' 'delay']

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 From Local Court Against Orders for Non Intimate Forensic Procedures / Supreme Court Determination of Summonses Challenging Local Court Orders on a Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate erred in law in determining under s 24(1)(b) of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW) that the forensic procedures were justified in all the circumstances by reference to s 24(4).' "Whether the Magistrate erred in law in finding that the defendant's delay in making the applications under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW) was acceptable."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate had appropriate regard to the considerations in s 24(4), the evidence supported the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to suspect both plaintiffs had committed the offence, NW's status as a serving police officer was not a relevant consideration weighing against the order, and the delay in making the applications was supported by an acceptable explanation. No error of law or House v The King discretionary error was shown.

Court Disposition

Summonses dismissed; Local Court orders confirmed with amendment; plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['In proceedings 2015/238619 and 2015/238628, the summonses are dismissed.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs." "The orders of Wahlquist LCM made on 11 August 2015 are confirmed save only for the following amendment: Pursuant to s 24 of the Crimes (Forensic Procedure) Act 2000 at a mutually convenient...