Christov v Michael Price LCM - [1999] NSWSC 1264

CITATION: CHRISTOV v MICHAEL PRICE LCM [1999] NSWSC 1264

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 11171/99

HEARING DATE(S): 15/06/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 June 1999

PARTIES :

Ivan Christov (Plaintiff)
Mr Michael Price (LCM) (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mr Michael Price (LCM)

COUNSEL : Plaintiff in person
Ms H Langley (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff in person
C Smith (Acting solicitors for Public Prosecutions) (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Declaration; Justices Act 1902; impending trial; ground justifying intervention not shown; refused

ACTS CITED: Justices Act 1902
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Waterhouse v Gilmore (1998) 12 NSWLR 270
Hakija Sinanovic v DPP (unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Ireland J, 20 October 1997)
Sergi v DPP (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 September 1991)
Yates v Wilson 168 CLR 338
Basha (1989) 39 ACR 337

DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

TUESDAY 15 JUNE 1999

11171/99

IVAN CHRISTOV v MICHAEL PRICE LCM & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 9 April 1998 the plaintiff was charged with a number of offences arising from the alleged sexual assaults committed by him on a much younger complainant in her residence. Those offences are extremely serious. 2 On 14 May 1998 a further eight offences were charged against him involving the same complainant. Again this second set of charges were very serious. 3 On 20 and 22 July 1998 committal proceedings were listed for September that year and the learned Local Court Magistrate determined applications made by the plaintiff to have a number of witnesses called. Those determinations were made under s48E of the Justices Act 1902 and were refused except as to two police officers. 4 Following a number of adjournments of the proceedings which commenced on 3 September 1998 the plaintiff was committed to stand trial on 3 March 1999. On 16 March 1999 the Director of Public Prosecutions was advised by the Legal Aid Commission that legal aid had been granted to the plaintiff in respect of his impending appearance in the District Court upon the charges for which he had been committed for trial. 5 On 28 April 1999 a bill of indictment was found against him in respect of a number of charges including offences under ss60(1), 90A and 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 30 April 1999 the plaintiff was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The trial is listed for mention before the District Court on 30 July 1999 and fixed to commence on 16 August 1999. 6 The plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court seeking relief with respect to the Magistrate's decision as to the calling of witnesses on 17 May 1999. There is a limitation in the character of the relief which can be sought in these circumstances (see Waterhouse v Gilmore (1998) 12 NSWLR 270; Hakija Sinanovic v DPP (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Ireland J, 20 October 1997)). 7 It is obvious…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Christov v Michael Price LCM and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 1264
Decision Date: 15 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Christov v Michael Price LCM, the Federal Court was called upon to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration regarding the impending trial. The plaintiff sought a declaration that certain events occurred, which would have a significant bearing on the impending trial. The case hinged on whether the plaintiff had shown a ground justifying intervention by the Court under the Justices Act 1902. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's application met the threshold for intervention, given the circumstances surrounding the impending trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a ground that justified the Court's intervention prior to the trial. The court had to examine the application to see if it satisfied the criteria set out in the Justices Act 1902. This involved a thorough analysis of the application and the context in which it was made. The court needed to decide whether the plaintiff had shown a matter of such importance and urgency that it warranted pre-trial intervention.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a ground that justified intervention under the Justices Act 1902. The application was dismissed as the plaintiff had not met the required threshold. The court held that the circumstances did not warrant pre-trial intervention and that the matter was more appropriately dealt with during the trial itself. Consequently, the plaintiff's application was refused, and the impending trial proceeded without any pre-trial declaration. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that the Justices Act 1902 was to be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where pre-trial intervention was necessary.

Orders