Michael v Musk

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Dr. Shawky Michael sought relief from the court in the form of a writ of mandamus and certiorari. The case against Dr. Michael stemmed from an altercation between him and his neighbour, Mr. Maughan, which resulted in criminal charges being brought against Dr. Michael. The case against Dr. Michael had progressed to the stage of a preliminary hearing in the Court of Petty Sessions, presided over by Mrs. Musk. The preliminary hearing had resulted in an order for Dr. Michael to be committed for trial on an indictable offence. Dr. Michael sought to have the order quashed on the basis that Mrs. Musk had failed to observe statutory requirements prior to making the order for committal. The Supreme Court granted the application to quash the order and adjourned the balance of the application. Dr. Michael subsequently sought to have the committal hearing stayed on the basis that it would be oppressive and a denial of natural justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for a stay of the committal hearing. The Court held that Dr. Michael was not in immediate jeopardy of an irrevocable finding of guilt and that it was not for the Supreme Court to make the decision as to whether or not Dr. Michael should be committed for trial. The Court also held that there was no evidence to support Dr. Michael's submission that he would not be given a fair hearing in the Court of Petty Sessions. Finally, the Court held that any alleged misleading conduct by the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the access to a videotape, which had been recorded by a surveillance camera at Dr. Michael's home, would not affect the course of the committal hearing.