Bagshaw v Carter & 3 Ors

[2006] NSWCA 113

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Judicial power of Commonwealth
3. › Investment of State courts with federal jurisdiction
4. › Committal proceedings for federal offences
5. › Whether s 68 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) involves impermissible delegation of Commonwealth legislative power to States
6. › Whether State laws determining procedure for federal criminal proceedings renders s 68 invalid
7. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 68(1), 68(2)
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Equality before the law
3. › Differences in State committal procedures
4. › Whether procedural differences between States in committal proceedings offend constitutional principle of legal equality
5. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 68
1. Criminal Law
2. › Committal proceedings
3. › Fair trial
4. › Whether public committal proceedings and magistrate's expression of opinion under s 65 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) negate right to fair and impartial trial
5. › Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 65
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Permanent stay of criminal proceedings
3. › Discretionary relief
4. › Whether Court of Appeal should exercise jurisdiction under s 48(2)(c) of Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
5. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 48(1)(a)(iv), 48(2)(c)

Quick Take

Section 68 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is constitutionally valid and does not involve an impermissible delegation of Commonwealth legislative power. Differences in State committal procedures do not render s 68 invalid on equality grounds. Public committal proceedings and a magistrate's expression of opinion under s 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) do not negate the right to a fair trial, as any concerns can be addressed by judicial directions to the jury.