Commissioner of Corrective Services v Liristis

The Commissioner of Corrective Services appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by a single judge of the Supreme Court. The respondent, Mr Liristis, a prisoner on remand awaiting trial in the District Court, had sought orders from the Supreme Court for access to his personal laptop and printer/scanner while in custody. The Commissioner contended that the Supreme Court judge had erred in exercising jurisdiction and in making positive orders that purported to bind a third party to ongoing District Court criminal proceedings.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by Mr Liristis, and if so, what was the scope of that jurisdiction. Specifically, the court considered whether Mr Liristis possessed a directly enforceable "right to a fair trial" or "right of access to courts" that would support the orders made. The court also examined the extent to which the Supreme Court's inherent and supervisory jurisdictions, particularly under section 23 and section 69 of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), could be invoked to supervise or interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings in another court, and whether a principle of restraint applied.

The Court of Appeal determined that the primary judge had erred in exercising jurisdiction. It held that the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts, while existing, is generally exercised with restraint, particularly in relation to ongoing criminal proceedings. The court applied the principle established in *Smith v Commissioner of Correctives Services* [1978] 1 NSWLR 317, finding that the orders made by the primary judge were not supported by the Supreme Court's inherent or supervisory jurisdiction, nor by any directly enforceable right to a fair trial or access to courts in the manner sought. The court concluded that the Supreme Court should not have made positive orders binding a third party in relation to District Court proceedings.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the Commissioner leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders made by the Supreme Court. In their place, the court ordered that the summons filed by Mr Liristis be dismissed.