Yenuga v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWCA 293

Yenuga v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2021] NSWCA 293

The Summons was dismissed because the applicant established no jurisdictional error. The District Court was entitled to revise transcripts of oral reasons, the email seeking Crown submissions did not give rise to apprehended bias, the proposed stated case raised no determinative question of law, and the remaining grounds were challenges to factual findings or otherwise misconceived. The constitutional complaints failed because no inconsistent Commonwealth law was identified and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was not enacted as domestic law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of District Court Decisions in a Criminal Matter / Summons Seeking Review of District Court Judgments Dismissing Conviction Appeal and Refusing to State a Case
Outcome
Extension of time granted; Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['stated Case' 'jurisdictional Error' 'apprehended Bias' 'functus Officio' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'inconsistency of Laws' 'proportionality' 'factual Findings on Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'judicial Review' 'constitutional Law'] ['stated Case' 'jurisdictional Error' 'apprehended Bias' 'functus Officio' 'domestic Violence Offences' 'inconsistency of Laws' 'proportionality' 'factual Findings on Appeal']

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

Application for Judicial Review of District Court Decisions in a Criminal Matter / Summons Seeking Review of District Court Judgments Dismissing Conviction Appeal and Refusing to State a Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to seek review of the District Court judgment of 8 April 2021.' 'Whether the District Court judgments were void because the Court was functus officio after oral reasons were delivered.' 'Whether an email seeking submissions from the Crown gave rise to apprehended bias or denial of natural justice.' 'Whether the District Court erred jurisdictionally in refusing to state a case under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5B.' "Whether the applicant's grounds identified questions of law or were impermissible challenges to findings of fact." 'Whether the relevant provisions of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2013 (NSW) were invalid by reason of inconsistency with Commonwealth law or lack of proportionality.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Summons was dismissed because the applicant established no jurisdictional error. The District Court was entitled to revise transcripts of oral reasons, the email seeking Crown submissions did not give rise to apprehended bias, the proposed stated case raised no determinative question of law, and the remaining grounds were challenges to factual findings or otherwise misconceived. The constitutional complaints failed because no inconsistent Commonwealth law was identified and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was not enacted as domestic law.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant an extension of time to apply for review of the judgment of 8 April 2021 up to the date of filing his Summons on 25 August 2021;' 'Dismiss the Summons seeking review of the judgments in the District Court of 8 April 2021 (dismissing his appeal) and of 3 June 2021 (refusing to state a case);'...