Tural v Potter

In Tural v Potter, the applicant sought judicial review of the magistrate's refusal to allow cross-examination of witnesses at a committal hearing in the Magistrates Court. The applicant argued that the magistrate's decision to deny the application for leave to cross-examine witnesses was unlawful and that the court should grant orders in the nature of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition to rectify the situation. The matter was brought before the court for a decision on whether the applicant was entitled to judicial relief.

The legal issues before the court centred on the scope of judicial review in relation to a magistrate's decision to deny an application for leave to cross-examine witnesses at a committal hearing. The court had to consider whether the magistrate's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient ground of review. The court also needed to determine whether the orders sought by the applicant were appropriate in the circumstances.

The court held that the magistrate's decision to deny the application for leave to cross-examine witnesses was not subject to judicial review, as it was a decision made in the course of a committal hearing, which was a criminal proceeding. The court found that the decision was not a "judicial or quasi-judicial" act, as defined in the Judicial Review Act 1991, and therefore could not be reviewed. The court also held that the orders sought by the applicant were not appropriate, as they would interfere with the criminal proceedings and the administration of justice. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient ground of review, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The court made no orders for costs.