Dimitropoulos v District Court of South Australia No. Scgrg-98-1161 Judgment No. S6836

The case of Dimitropoulos v District Court of South Australia involves the plaintiff, Dimitropoulos, who is seeking judicial review of a decision made by the District Court judge during the trial of a criminal charge against him and two others. The plaintiff argues that the District Court judge should not have accepted a guilty plea from one of the co-accused, Mr Griffin, before proceeding with the trial of the other two accused, including the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the District Court judge to strike out the plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty. The plaintiff also seeks declarations that, based on the agreed facts, Mr Griffin could not plead guilty to the offence with which he was charged.

The legal issues that the court had to decide in this case included whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the application, whether there was an error of law on the face of the record, and whether there was a compelling reason for the court to refuse the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the application as it was not for a third party to allege that another party did not admit to all the necessary elements of the offence. The court also found that there was no error on the face of the record as the statement forming the basis of the plea was consistent with Mr Griffin being a principal offender and not just an aider and abettor.

Furthermore, the court held that even if there was an error of law, it would be inappropriate to allow the claim to proceed due to the reluctance of courts to interfere with the criminal process. The court emphasised that the jurisdiction to make an order of review is discretionary and should only be exercised in the most exceptional cases. The court also noted that the purpose of the application was to prevent Mr Griffin from giving Crown evidence at the plaintiff's trial, and therefore, the application was not made in good faith or to achieve some indirect purpose.

The court ultimately refused leave to serve the summons, striking out the part of the summons which seeks judicial review. The court held that on the evidence before it, there was no reasonable prospect that the court would make any order in the nature of judicial review. The plaintiff has the option to proceed with the declarations sought in the summons, for which no leave to serve is necessary.