Gunter v Bloxsom

99.406

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA PINCUS JA AMBROSE J

Appeal No 8244 of 1999

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER	Appellant (Applicant)
and
J C BLOXSOM	First Respondent (First Respondent)
and
G C MURPHY	Second Respondent (Second Respondent)
and
R WOODFORD	Third Respondent (Third Respondent)

BRISBANE
..DATE 22/09/99
220999 T10/JAP22 M/T COA 234/99
DAVIES JA: This is an appeal from an order made by a
Supreme Court Judge on 6 September last that an application
for judicial review under section 43 of the Judicial Review
Act be dismissed with costs.

The order was made because the learned primary Judge was of the view that adequate provision was made in section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 under which the applicant was entitled

to seek a review of the matter by a Court: see the Judicial

Review Act 1991 section 12(b).

Accordingly his Honour, in the exercise of his discretion,
dismissed the application. The application for judicial
review was in respect of convictions of the appellant in the
Magistrates Court of a number of offences under the
Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulations 1991. There
was a right of appeal against those convictions to a
District Court Judge pursuant to section 222 of the Justices

Act.

No satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant for
his failure to appeal under that provision. His Honour was
plainly right, in my view, to conclude that section 222 was
an adequate provision under which the appellant was entitled
to seek a review of the matter by an order of a court within
the meaning of section 12(b) and it has not been shown that
the learned primary Judge exercised his discretion wrongly
220999 T10/JAP22 M/T COA 234/99
in making the order which he accordingly did.

There were other applications before his Honour but, as he rightly said, if the application for judicial review was dismissed it would be unnecessary to consider them. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider them here also.

The appeal should therefore, in my opinion, be dismissed with costs.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The orders are as I have indicated.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Richard Stephen Gunter, the appellant, versus J C Bloxsom, the first respondent, G C Murphy, the second respondent, and R Woodford, the third respondent, the case was brought before the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Gunter, sought judicial review of his convictions in the Magistrates Court for multiple offences under the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulations 1991. Gunter challenged the decision of a Supreme Court Judge who dismissed his application for judicial review and ordered him to pay costs. The primary judge's decision was based on the finding that Gunter had an adequate remedy available under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886, which provided for an appeal to a District Court Judge. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge's dismissal of the application for judicial review and the imposition of costs was correct.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the primary judge had erred in concluding that section 222 of the Justices Act provided an adequate remedy for Gunter's grievances. The Court found that the primary judge was correct in determining that section 222 was indeed an adequate provision under which Gunter could seek a review of his convictions by an order of a court. The Court also noted that Gunter had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to appeal under section 222. The Court of Appeal further held that the primary judge did not exercise his discretion wrongly in dismissing the application for judicial review and ordering Gunter to pay costs. The Court of Appeal was in agreement with the decision of the primary judge.

In light of the Court of Appeal's decision, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court found no error in the primary judge's decision and upheld the dismissal of Gunter's application for judicial review. The Court also affirmed the order for Gunter to pay costs. The Court of Appeal did not consider the other applications before the primary judge as they were deemed unnecessary following the dismissal of the application for judicial review.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established