Lazarus v Independent Commission Against Corruption

The applicants, Lazarus and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the District Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute concerned the District Court's summary dismissal of an appeal against conviction and its handling of an appeal against sentence, both originating from the Local Court. The applicants also sought the recusal of the judge presiding over the judicial review proceedings due to apprehended bias. The matter was heard by Basten and Meagher JJA and Sackville AJA.

The court was required to determine whether the District Court had committed jurisdictional error in summarily dismissing the appeal against conviction when the appellant failed to appear. Further, the court had to consider whether jurisdictional error occurred in the District Court's handling of the appeal against sentence, particularly in relation to the extent of evidence considered and the opportunity provided to the parties to present their material. Finally, the court had to assess whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying the recusal of the judge.

The Court of Appeal found no jurisdictional error in the District Court's decisions. Regarding the appeal against conviction, the court held that the District Court had the power to summarily dismiss an appeal where the appellant failed to appear, and this power was not exercised in a manner that constituted jurisdictional error. On the appeal against sentence, the court concluded that the judge had correctly understood the available evidence and that the parties had been afforded sufficient opportunity to present their material. The recusal application was also dismissed, with the court finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the judge's preliminary views expressed in an interlocutory application.

The applications made by the applicants were dismissed. This included their summons, a notice of motion filed on 19 November 2018, and an application to amend their summons to include an order made on 18 August 2018. The notices of motion filed by the second and third respondents were also dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.