Rahman v Rahman (No 2)

[2024] NSWCA 109

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Rahman v Rahman (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 109

Hearing dates:

2 May 2024

Decision date:

02 May 2024

Before:

Leeming JA at [1], [30], [34], [36];
White JA at [2], [39];
Mitchelmore JA at [33], [40]

Decision:

Summons filed 27 October 2023 dismissed with costs

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Whether applicant denied procedural fairness — Where nothing in transcript of hearing under review demonstrates that applicant was unable to put what he wished before the Court — Summons dismissed.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 18

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 289VA

District Court (Crimes Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), ss 84(2)(b), 84(3), 93, 99, 99A

District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 176

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

Cases Cited:

Choi v NSW Ombudsman (2021) 104 NSWLR 505; [2021] NSWCA 68

Dogramaci v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2022] NSWCA 83

Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52

Singh v Hicks and Nissan [2021] NSWCA 80

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Fahmid Rahman (Applicant)
Mita Farjina Rahman (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Applicant is self-represented
M J Lewis with K Hooper (Respondent)

Solicitors:
MIC Lawyers (Applicant)
Nanette Reuben (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/345709

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

14 August 2023

Before:

Williams SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/104318

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant brought a summons for judicial review of a decision of the District Court which dismissed an appeal from orders of the Local Court rejecting an application for an apprehended domestic violence order.

In the District Court appeal, the applicant, then the appellant, provided no written submissions in advance of the hearing and no evidence on the appeal. His argument that he had been denied procedural fairness in the Local Court was rejected. The judge agreed with the Magistrate’s findings. The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the District Court, and it was taken that he sought orders in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision and an order in the nature of mandamus that the application be determined by the District Court in accordance with law.

The Court (Leeming, White, and Mitchelmore JJA) dismissed the summons, holding:

On the summons:

Nothing in the transcript of District Court hearing demonstrated that the applicant was not able to present his case. He was given the opportunity to make oral submissions and could have handed up written submissions: [22] (per White JA, Leeming and Mitchelmore JJA agreeing).

The District Court transcript, described as inaccurate by the applicant, demonstrated that the applicant was explicitly asked what he wished to submit and was provided the opportunity to do so by the judge: [30] (per Leeming JA).

The applicant’s contentions regarding his inability personally to cross-examine his former wife are moot, as she was not a witness and…