Maddocks v Director of Public Prosecutions

Maddocks (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (the respondent) to refuse to grant a certificate of indemnity under s 10 of the *Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982* (NSW). The applicant had been convicted of an offence and sought the certificate to indemnify him against prosecution for other offences arising out of the same circumstances. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had erred in law in refusing to grant the certificate of indemnity. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the respondent's discretion under s 10 of the *Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982* (NSW) and whether the respondent had failed to take into account relevant considerations or taken into account irrelevant considerations when making the decision.

Gaudron and McHugh JJ held that the respondent's discretion under s 10 was not unfettered and that the respondent was required to consider whether granting the certificate was in the public interest. Their Honours found that the respondent had failed to consider this crucial aspect of the public interest, thereby misdirecting himself in law. The court concluded that the respondent's decision was vitiated by error of law.

The High Court ordered that the decision of the respondent be quashed and remitted the matter to the respondent with a direction to reconsider the application for a certificate of indemnity according to law.