Franklin v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The plaintiff, Franklin, sought judicial review of a decision by the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the District Court's refusal to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal concerning a Magistrate's decision to exclude certain evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to determine whether the District Court had erred in law by declining to state a case.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the District Court had committed jurisdictional error by refusing to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. This involved considering the power of a District Court judge to decline to state a question of law, particularly where the questions raised might be considered frivolous or baseless, and the tension in existing authorities on this point. A further issue was whether the admissibility of an exculpatory statement made by the accused to a community corrections officer, recorded in a departmental record, constituted a question of law alone, rather than a question of fact.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that while nine of the ten questions raised by the plaintiff were not relevant questions of law and could be considered frivolous or baseless, one question (identified as (d)) did raise a material question of law concerning the admissibility of probative evidence. This evidence related to an exculpatory statement made by the accused, which the Magistrate had excluded as "self-serving" and the District Court had refused leave to introduce on appeal. The Court held that the admissibility of this record, as a business record and not hearsay, was a question of law. Accordingly, the District Court's refusal to state a case on this specific question constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court of Criminal Appeal ordered that the District Court's order refusing to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s 5B of the *Criminal Appeal Act 1912* (NSW) in relation to question (d) be quashed. The matter was remitted to the District Court to be dealt with according to law, and the relief sought by the plaintiff in relation to the remaining nine questions was refused. No order was made as to costs.