Legal Research
Cases
Potier v Magistrate Maloney

Potier v Magistrate Maloney

Case [2005] NSWSC 336 13 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Potier v Magistrate Maloney and Ors [2005] NSWSC 336

HEARING DATE(S): 8 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

13 April 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Johnson J at 1

DECISION:
Summons dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - order of committal for trial - bill of indictment found - application for leave to appeal and claim for prerogative relief - irregularity in committal proceedings - whether Supreme Court should intervene - relief refused.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981
Interpretation Act 1987
Local Courts (Appeal and Review Act) Act 2001
Supreme Court Act 1970
Justices Act 1902
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
District Court Rules

CASES CITED:
R v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136
Roos v Director of Public Prosecutions (1994) 34 NSWLR 254
Ex Parte Cousens; re Blacket (1946) 47 SR 145
Waterhouse v Gilmore (1988) 12 NSWLR 270
Saffron v Director of Public Prosecutions (1989) 16 NSWLR 397
Potier v Director of Public Prosecutions (2001) 123 A Crim R 176
V v McDonald (Court of Appeal, 16 February 1995, BC9504205)
R v Butler (1991) 24 NSWLR 66
McKirdy v McCosker (2002) 127 A Crim R 217
Sergi v Director of Public Prosecutions (Court of Appeal, 10 September 1991, BC9101577)
Burns v Barnett (Studdert J, 1 October 1993, unreported)
Christov v Price [1999] NSWSC 1264
R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1

PARTIES:
Malcolm Huntley Potier (Plaintiff)
Magistrate Maloney (First Defendant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Second Defendant)
Chief Judge, District Court of New South Wales (Third Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 10244/05

COUNSEL:
---

SOLICITORS:
Mr Potier (in person)
Mr Soulos (First Defendant) (submitting appearance)
Ms Helen Langley (Second Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
---

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Maloney LCM

This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CIVIL LIST

JOHNSON J

13 April 2005

10244/05 POTIER v MAGISTRATE MALONEY and ORS
JUDGMENT

1 JOHNSON J: The Plaintiff, Malcolm Huntley Potier, seeks relief arising from his committal for trial by the First Defendant at the Central Local Court on 11 January 2005 with respect to a charge of inciting a person to solicit another to commit murder.

2 Following his committal for trial, the Plaintiff appeared before the Sydney District Court on 28 January 2005 and again on 11 March 2005. On the last-mentioned date, a Crown Prosecutor found a bill of indictment alleging that the Plaintiff did between 1 January and 8 February 2002, at Malabar in the State of New South Wales, incite Mr A to commit an offence, namely to solicit another to murder Myra Linda Oswald. The Plaintiff was not arraigned on 11 March 2005, with the matter being stood over for mention in the District Court on 15 April 2005.

3 The First Defendant, a Local Court Magistrate, submits to the orders…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Potier v Magistrate Maloney

Details

AGLC: Potier v Magistrate Maloney [2005] NSWSC 336
Case: [2005] NSWSC 336
Decision Date: 13 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Potier v Magistrate Maloney involves a committal proceeding in which the defendant was found guilty by a magistrate. The defendant subsequently applied for leave to appeal and sought prerogative relief, arguing that there was an irregularity in the committal proceedings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the court should intervene in the committal proceedings due to the alleged irregularity.

The legal issue at the heart of this case was whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to intervene in the committal proceedings on the basis of an alleged irregularity. The defendant argued that the irregularity in question was significant enough to warrant intervention and potentially lead to a quashing of the committal order. The court had to determine whether the alleged irregularity was indeed substantial and whether the court's intervention was warranted under the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the alleged irregularity did not reach the threshold of seriousness necessary to warrant intervention by the Supreme Court. The court found that the irregularities did not affect the fairness or the outcome of the committal proceedings. Consequently, the court refused both the application for leave to appeal and the claim for prerogative relief. The court emphasised the principle that the Supreme Court should only intervene in committal proceedings in cases of substantial irregularity that impacts the fairness of the process.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal and the claim for prerogative relief were dismissed, and the order of committal for trial remained in place. The court's decision underscored the limited circumstances under which the Supreme Court would intervene in committal proceedings, reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint in such matters.

Orders