18 Dec 2007
PAGE V PAGE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007203
- Citation
- openlaw-8730d5d3_e10f_4981_9133_34b35ac5bd2c.pdf
- Court
- High Court
Even if Judge Sharp's admissibility ruling under s 125(1) may have been open to challenge, the High Court refused to exercise its s 4(1) discretionary jurisdiction because the prosecutor had alternative remedies (s 344A at depositions and s 380 reservation) that were not used, the alleged perjury was peripheral to the protection order issue, the plaintiff was not an impartial private prosecutor, and revisiting the s 347(3) discharge would be inappropriate and unfair to the accused; therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
- Perjury
- Admissibility of evidence
- Private prosecution
- Section 125 domestic violence act 1995
- Section 347 crimes act 1961
- Prosecutorial discretion