Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Dangerfield

The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales appealed to the Court of Appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court who had dismissed a summons for contempt against the respondent, Ms Dangerfield. The contempt proceedings arose from Ms Dangerfield's refusal to answer questions as a prosecution witness in a Local Court trial of her brother for a domestic violence-related assault. The Local Court magistrate formed the view that Ms Dangerfield was guilty of contempt and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for determination, as permitted by section 24(4) of the *Local Court Act 2007* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Local Court magistrate's exercise of the referral power under section 24(4) of the *Local Court Act 2007* was vitiated by a denial of procedural fairness to Ms Dangerfield. Specifically, the court considered whether the common law principles of natural justice were implied in the exercise of this power, and whether Ms Dangerfield ought to have been informed of the alternative courses of action available to the magistrate, including summary determination of the contempt, and invited to make submissions on whether the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court. The court also had regard to the potential prejudice to Ms Dangerfield, including the fact that the Supreme Court could impose a significantly higher penalty than the Local Court, and her personal circumstances as an Indigenous woman residing in Queensland with children.

The Court of Appeal held that the exercise of the referral power under section 24(4) of the *Local Court Act 2007* was not a purely ministerial act and engaged the rights and interests of the person accused of contempt. The court found that the magistrate's failure to inform Ms Dangerfield of the available options and to invite submissions on the referral constituted a denial of procedural fairness. This failure was particularly significant given the increased jeopardy Ms Dangerfield faced by being referred to the Supreme Court, including the potential for a greater penalty and the hardship associated with defending proceedings in a different jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.