The ACT Supreme Court held that its inherent jurisdiction under s 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) is sufficiently broad to permit remittal of criminal proceedings to the ACT Childrens Court for sentence after committal for trial, even though no express statutory power of remittal exists. The Court rejected s 180(1) of the Legislation Act 2001 and s 20(2) of the Supreme Court Act as sources of power, but found that the inherent jurisdiction was not ousted by the existence of limited statutory remittal provisions in other contexts. The interests of justice favoured remittal where the charges were suitable for summary jurisdiction, the application was made promptly at arraignment, remittal enabled sentencing parity with a co-offender, and the prosecution did not oppose.
The full text is available to signed-in members.