Thorp, M.W. v Abbotto, M

Thorp, M.W. v Abbotto, M. was a case before the court that involved a dispute concerning the judicial review of a magistrate's power to commit a defendant for trial when there are two hypotheses, one consistent with guilt and the other with innocence. The central issue was whether the magistrate was bound to discharge the defendant if the hypothesis consistent with innocence could be considered unless it was supported by evidence.

The court had to determine whether a magistrate could take into account a hypothesis consistent with innocence when deciding whether to commit a defendant for trial. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant legal principles governing judicial review in administrative law. Specifically, the court needed to clarify the circumstances under which a magistrate could consider an alternative hypothesis to the one consistent with guilt.

In its reasoning, the court held that the magistrate was not bound to discharge the defendant solely based on the consideration of an alternative hypothesis unless it was supported by evidence. The court emphasised that the magistrate's decision-making process should be guided by the evidence presented. The court found that the magistrate had not erred in law by not discharging the defendant based on the alternative hypothesis alone. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of Heerey J. dated 20 December 1991, dismissed the respondent's application for an order of review, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.