Singh v NSW Police - [2020] NSWSC 1214

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v NSW Police [2020] NSWSC 1214
Hearing dates: 7 September 2020
Date of orders: 7 September 2020
Decision date: 07 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal is refused.
(2)   The plaintiff's summons is dismissed.
(3)   I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the summons.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to Supreme Court — By person against whom an interlocutory order is made with leave on a question of law alone — whether leave should be granted

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 53, 54
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 194
Inclosed Land Protection Act 1901 (NSW)
Supreme Court Rules, r 51B.6

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tirath Singh (Applicant)
NSW Police (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)
Plaintiff (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2020/247508
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Date of Decision:

16 July 2020

Before:

Magistrate Giles

File Number(s):

2020/247508

REVISED EX TEMPORE Judgment

By way of a summons filed on 24 August 2020, Tirath Singh (“the plaintiff”) seeks orders against the defendant, named as NSW Police.
As set out in the relief claimed, the plaintiff seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a magistrate of the Local Court pursuant to s 53 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) (“the Review Act”).
The plaintiff then seeks the following further orders:

an order that the charges against him be summarily dismissed;

an order that the bail condition be cancelled, although in his oral submissions he said that he wished to have it varied;

an order that the trial set for 9 September 2020 be vacated, and

costs.

The plaintiff identifies 29 grounds of appeal and then identifies 10 further reasons as to why leave to appeal should be granted.
I will set out the background to the proceedings by way of summary. The proceedings arise out of the plaintiff being banned from attending his local place of worship, being a Sikh temple at Penrith. The plaintiff relies on his own affidavit, sworn 2 September 2020.
The plaintiff appears in person. Mr Deards, solicitor, appears for the defendant.
The exhibits to the plaintiff's affidavit run to 78 pages. Those documents are relevant to the application as the plaintiff wishes to pursue it.
Mr Deards did not object to the affidavit although he reserved the position should the plaintiff seek to rely on further material or expand upon the basis of his application outside what Mr Deards understood it to be.

Background to the Proceedings

In or around 2007 or 2008, a Sikh temple was established at Penrith. At least on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the plaintiff became the chief priest in the temple and was intimately involved in the temple and the worship undertaken in the temple up until sometime in 2019.
As far as I can gather from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v NSW Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 1214
Decision Date: 07 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard an appeal by an individual against a decision made by the Local Court. The individual, Mr. Singh, was appealing against an interlocutory order made in his case, which was granted with leave on a question of law alone. The nature of the dispute was whether the leave should be granted in this case. The court had to consider whether the leave should be granted in this matter.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the leave should be granted in this matter and if so, on what grounds. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the law and determine if the conditions for granting leave were satisfied. The court had to consider the nature of the interlocutory order and the potential consequences of granting or refusing leave. The court also had to consider the potential impact on the overall administration of justice.

The court, after carefully considering the legal issues and the arguments presented by both parties, decided that the leave should not be granted. The court found that the conditions for granting leave were not satisfied, and that the potential consequences of granting leave outweighed any potential benefits. The court also found that the interlocutory order was not such that it would cause substantial injustice if it remained in place. The court emphasised the importance of the proper administration of justice and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in legal proceedings. The court concluded that the leave should not be granted in this matter.

Orders