Smith v Blanch

(2025) 118 NSWLR 70; [2025] NSWCA 188

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. › Supervisory jurisdiction
4. › Jurisdictional error
5. › Standard of appellate review
6. › Whether correctness standard or House v The King standard applies to finding under s 19(1)(b) of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
7. › Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 7, 19, 20
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Supervisory jurisdiction
4. › Jurisdictional error
5. › Procedural fairness
6. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
7. › Whether inference as to intention had to be put to applicant in cross-examination
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Supervisory jurisdiction
4. › Jurisdictional error
5. › Relevant and irrelevant considerations
6. › Whether intention to harass is mandatory relevant consideration under s 7(1)(a)
7. › Whether errors of fact constitute jurisdictional error
8. › Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 7, 19
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Implied freedom of political communication
3. › Apprehended violence orders
4. › Whether provisions authorising APVOs impermissibly burden implied freedom
5. › Whether burden incidental and content-neutral
6. › Whether burden justified by protective purpose
7. › Structured proportionality
8. › Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 7, 19, 35(2)(f)

Quick Take

The correctness standard of appellate review applies to the entirety of the jurisdictional enquiry under s 19(1)(b) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), including the sufficiency finding, and intimidation under s 7(1)(a) does not require proof of intention to harass or molest. The APVO provisions impose only a limited and incidental burden on the implied freedom of political communication that is justified by the protective purpose of the legislation.