Kang v Bishop

The applicant, Kang, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge who had dismissed an application for judicial review. The judicial review concerned the validity of prosecutions commenced against Kang for offences under the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW). The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "any person" in section 14 of the *Criminal Procedure Act 1986* (NSW) and whether it should be read down in the context of commencing prosecutions.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for judicial review and, consequently, whether the prosecutions against the applicant were validly commenced. This required the court to determine the scope of "any person" as used in section 14 of the *Criminal Procedure Act 1986* (NSW) and whether that provision permitted the commencement of prosecutions in the manner undertaken against the applicant.

Gleeson JA and Sackville AJA considered the relevant legislative provisions and the principles of statutory interpretation. The Court concluded that the appeal was incompetent, implying that the grounds raised did not establish a valid basis for an appeal or that the appeal itself was procedurally flawed.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as incompetent. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for both the summons and the appeal.