Reznitsky v Director of Public Prosecutions

Reznitsky sought judicial review of a District Court order that dismissed his application to set aside a prior order dismissing his appeal from the Local Court. The initial appeal was dismissed because Reznitsky failed to appear on the second day of its hearing. Reznitsky's subsequent application to set aside that dismissal was itself dismissed, again due to his failure to attend on the second day of that hearing and his failure to provide evidence in support of his application. The judicial review was heard by Basten JA, Tobias AJA, and Adamson J.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the District Court judge had committed a jurisdictional error, whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias, and whether Reznitsky had been subjected to procedural unfairness, including a failure by the judge to give reasons for the dismissal of his application to reinstate the appeal.

The court found that Reznitsky had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error. His repeated failures to attend court hearings, both for his original appeal and for his subsequent application to reinstate that appeal, were critical. The court noted that Reznitsky had not proffered any evidence to explain these absences or to support his application. Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness. The judge was entitled to dismiss the application for reinstatement given Reznitsky's non-attendance and lack of supporting evidence.

The summons for judicial review was dismissed, and there were no orders as to the costs of the summons.