Reid v Nairn

In Reid v Nairn, the appellant, Christopher Kidman Reid, sought an order for discovery of documents from the respondent, William Ian Nairn, who was acting as the Director of Public Prosecutions. The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and had sought to have the matter dealt with summarily. After the appellant's solicitor made representations to the police, the police indicated they would make a recommendation for summary proceedings if the information provided by the appellant met with their satisfaction. However, the respondent subsequently decided not to consent to the matter being dealt with summarily. The appellant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision and applied for discovery of documents related to the decision. The primary judge granted a limited discovery order and refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The appellant then applied for leave to appeal to the Full Court, which was also refused. The appellant sought special leave to appeal to the Full Court from the refusal to grant leave to appeal. The court considered the legal issues of whether a renewed application for leave to appeal and an appeal from the refusal to grant leave were competent. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was incompetent as it could only be heard and determined once, either by a single judge or a Full Court. The court also held that an appeal from the refusal to grant leave was not competent as the jurisdiction of the court was appellate only and not original. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal from the refusal to grant leave, with costs. The court found no error in the primary judge's order for discovery and held that the ambit of a discovery order was a matter of discretion. The court also noted that the interlocutory decision made by the primary judge was one on a matter of practice and procedure, and an appeal court would rarely interfere with a trial judge's decision on such matters.