[2024] VSC 709 (First Revision 19 November 2024: n 71)
---
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Judicial review — Director of Public Prosecutions took over private prosecution commenced by plaintiff and withdrew charges — Plaintiff seeking judicial review of decision to withdraw charges — Director contends prosecutorial decision to withdraw charges not amenable to judicial review — Where proceeding involves a constitutional matter of which notice has been given under Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B — Friends of the Court appointed as contradictor — Held decision insusceptible of judicial review.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — The judiciary — Supervisory jurisdiction of State Supreme Courts — Supervision of the exercise of executive power for jurisdictional error — ‘Principle of unreviewability’ — Whether Supreme Court of Victoria’s supervisory jurisdiction extended to judicial review of prosecutorial decision to withdraw criminal charges — Held that it did not — Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic) s 22(1)(b)(ii) — Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B(1) — Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) Part IIIA — Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 — Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Plaintiff
In person
For the First Defendant
Mr S Bunce
Gallant Law
For the Second Defendant
Mr A Pound SC, Solicitor-General for Victoria, with Ms K Brown and Ms J Vogan
Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Third Defendant
No appearance
Friends of the Court
Ms F Gordon KC with Mr S Rajanayagam and Ms M Jackson
HER HONOUR:
In June 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to take over a private prosecution commenced by Zenaan Harkness against Benjamin Banks in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. At a committal case conference on 16 June 2022, the Director was represented by a solicitor from the Office of Public Prosecutions, who advised the magistrate that she was instructed to withdraw all of the charges. The magistrate then struck out the charges on the basis that they had been withdrawn.
In this proceeding, Mr Harkness seeks judicial review of the Director’s decision to withdraw the charges against Mr Banks. He seeks orders setting aside the orders of the Magistrates’ Court made on 16 June 2022, or alternatively an order requiring the Director to continue or recommence the prosecution. The Director contends that the decision is not amenable to judicial review, relying on the High Court authority of Maxwell v The Queen,[1] and two decisions of this Court.[2]
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Harkness v Banks (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Harkness v Banks (No 2) [2024] VSC 709
Case
[2024] VSC 709
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Harkness, sought judicial review of the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw charges in a criminal matter that Harkness had originally commenced as a private prosecution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Harkness argued that the decision to withdraw the charges was flawed and should be reviewed by the court. The Director contended that prosecutorial decisions, such as withdrawing charges, were not subject to judicial review.
The central legal issue was whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had the jurisdiction to review the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to withdraw the charges. The court examined the relevant statutes, including the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 (Vic) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), as well as the constitutional framework governing the separation of powers and the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. The court also considered relevant case law, including Maxwell v The Queen and Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW).
The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not subject to judicial review. The court found that the decision was a prosecutorial one and that the principle of unreviewability applied. This principle prevents the courts from reviewing decisions made by the executive branch in the course of exercising its powers. The court further held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court did not extend to reviewing the Director’s decision to withdraw the charges. The court relied on the constitutional separation of powers and the statutory framework, which did not provide for such review.
The court dismissed Harkness’s application for judicial review. The decision to withdraw the charges by the Director of Public Prosecutions was final and not subject to court scrutiny. The court did not grant any orders in favour of the plaintiff.