Mulder v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

(2015) 250 A Crim R 154; [2015] NSWCA 92

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Review of decisions of District Court in criminal jurisdiction on appeal from Local Court
4. › Review limited to jurisdictional error
5. › Whether jurisdictional error established
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
7. › District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Jurisdictional error
4. › Categories of jurisdictional error
5. › Failure to afford procedural fairness
6. › Whether inadequate representation constitutes denial of procedural fairness
7. › Whether refusal to allow fresh evidence constitutes denial of procedural fairness
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Pre-judgment
5. › Whether description of exhibit in court record demonstrated apprehended bias by magistrate
6. › Test for apprehended bias
1. Criminal Law
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Court attendance notice
4. › Amendment of particulars
5. › Whether amendment of date of offence renders CAN invalid
6. › Whether contravention of requirement to provide brief particulars results in invalidity
7. › Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 15, 20, 21, 175

Quick Take

Judicial review of District Court decisions on appeal from the Local Court in criminal matters is confined to jurisdictional error. Complaints of inadequate representation must be supported by affidavit evidence disclosing communications with and instructions given to legal representatives. A complaint of inadequate reasons will only constitute jurisdictional error if the inadequacy demonstrates that the District Court judge misunderstood the scope of jurisdiction so as not to conduct a rehearing. Factual challenges and sufficiency of evidence complaints do not raise questions of jurisdictional error.