Mulder v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Mulder (the applicant) sought judicial review of decisions made by the District Court of New South Wales in its criminal jurisdiction, which had heard appeals from the Local Court. The applicant challenged the District Court's decisions at two levels, arguing that the District Court had committed jurisdictional error. The grounds for this challenge included allegations that the applicant had not been afforded procedural fairness, that he had received inadequate legal representation, and that the District Court had erred in refusing to allow fresh evidence to be adduced pursuant to the *Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001* (NSW). Additionally, the applicant contended that there was an apprehension of bias on the part of the magistrate in the Local Court, stemming from an alleged pre-judgment of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the District Court's decisions involved jurisdictional error. This involved considering whether the applicant's complaints regarding procedural fairness, inadequate representation, and the refusal of fresh evidence amounted to such an error. The court also had to assess whether the alleged apprehended bias in the Local Court, if established, would render the District Court's subsequent decisions invalid. Further issues included the validity of the court attendance notice (CAN) and any conviction, particularly in light of an amendment to the date of the offence specified in the CAN, and whether the prosecution's failure to call a material witness, or the District Court's inability to assess the applicant's credibility, or the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the District Court, constituted jurisdictional error.

Ward and Gleeson JJA, and Johnson J, dismissed each summons. The court found that the apprehended bias on the part of the magistrate was not established. It was also determined that the CAN was not invalid, notwithstanding the amendment to the date of the offence. The court concluded that the complaints regarding the prosecution's failure to call a material witness, the District Court's assessment of credibility, and the adequacy of reasons did not amount to jurisdictional error. Consequently, all grounds for judicial review were dismissed.