Price v Yorkston

Ronald John Price applied for a statutory order of review of certain interlocutory decisions of a magistrate, arguing that the magistrate concluded that adequate particulars of a charge had been given to him without giving him an opportunity to be heard and decided that the complaint would be heard on 29 August 1996 irrespective of whether Price had obtained all of the documents which he was then seeking on an application made under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. The second respondent, a police prosecutor, brought a notice of motion that the application be dismissed. The legal issues were whether the magistrate's decisions not to order further and better particulars of the charge and to set the matter down for hearing were reviewable and whether the application for review should be dismissed. The court found that the magistrate's decisions were not "a decision of an administrative character" and were not "a decision to which this Act applies" within the meaning of the Judicial Review Act. However, the court retained the power to grant relief with the same effect. Although the prerogative writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari were no longer to be issued by the court, the court could still grant relief by way of an application for review. The court held that the magistrate's decision not to hear Price's submissions on the adequacy of the particulars supplied was an error of law and reviewable. However, the court was of the view that it was appropriate to dismiss the application pursuant to s.48(1) of the Judicial Review Act because there was no discernible error on the part of the magistrate in setting the matter down for hearing on 29 August 1996 and adequate particulars had been supplied to Price at least by that date.

The formal orders were: The application for judicial review be dismissed. The applicant Ronald John Price pay the second respondent's costs of the hearing on 2 October 1996 to be taxed.