Re Webster

In *Re Webster*, the High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent, a magistrate, from proceeding with a committal hearing against the applicant. The applicant sought to prohibit the magistrate from continuing the committal proceedings on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against him.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a magistrate, at a committal hearing, has the power to refuse to commit an accused for trial if the magistrate is of the opinion that, on the evidence presented, no jury properly instructed could convict the accused. The court was required to determine the scope of the magistrate's discretion and the standard of proof necessary to justify committal.

Barwick C.J. held that a magistrate's function at a committal hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. His Honour stated that if there is some evidence upon which a jury, properly instructed, could convict, the magistrate must commit the accused for trial. The court reasoned that the role of the magistrate is to filter out cases where there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction, not to act as a preliminary judge of fact. The High Court ultimately dismissed the application for prohibition.