GAR v Attorney General of New South Wales (No 2)

The applicant, GAR, sought judicial review of a decision by a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to refuse to direct an inquiry under Part 7 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW). The Attorney General of New South Wales was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned whether the judge had erred in law in her assessment of the applicant's request for an inquiry.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had fallen into jurisdictional error by misapprehending the nature of her power under Part 7 of the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW). Specifically, the court considered whether there was a doubt or question as to any part of the evidence in the case, which would have triggered the judge's power to direct an inquiry. The court also considered whether the primary judge's decision was unreasonable or amounted to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not misapprehended her power. Her Honour had correctly understood the threshold for directing an inquiry under Part 7, which requires a doubt or question as to any part of the evidence. The court held that the material before the primary judge did not disclose such a doubt or question, and therefore her Honour was not obliged to direct an inquiry. The decision was not unreasonable, nor did it constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.