El-Saeidy v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The applicant, El-Saeidy, sought judicial review of interlocutory decisions made by a Local Court magistrate, specifically the rejection of an application for recusal. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) was the respondent. The underlying proceedings involved appeals from convictions and the imposition of an apprehended domestic violence order in the Local Court. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerned the availability of judicial review of such interlocutory decisions, particularly in the context of an appeal already pending in the District Court.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the applicant was entitled to judicial review of the magistrate's refusal to recuse himself, and if so, whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain such a review given the pending appeal in the District Court. A related issue concerned the proper application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regarding the scope of a solicitor's instructions, particularly after the termination of instructions following a failed adjournment application.

The Court of Appeal held that judicial review of interlocutory decisions is generally not available when an appeal on the merits is pending in a superior court, as this would permit a "parallel jurisdiction" to operate. The Court reasoned that the established appellate process provides a sufficient avenue for challenging interlocutory decisions that affect the fairness of the proceedings. The Court also noted that the applicant's solicitor had indicated that their instructions were limited to the specific application before the Court, and that the solicitor was not instructed to appeal the interlocutory decision itself.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the proceedings. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW).