WILLIAMS v Blackley - [2010] NSWCA 246

New South Wales

Court of Appeal

CITATION: WILLIAMS v BLACKLEY [2010] NSWCA 246

HEARING DATE(S): 17 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1, 14; Campbell JA at 13, 17

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 17 September 2010

DECISION: (1) In each matter, refuse leave to appeal.
(2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent Mr Blackley’s reasonable expenses incurred in responding to the application in this Court, including any loss of wages in attending today’s hearing.
(3) No order as to the costs of Mr Van Kooten.

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - not available to quash acquittal in criminal proceedings - COSTS - general rule that costs follow the event - self-represented respondent - payment of reasonable expenses including lost wages

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). ss 23, 56
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 150
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1
Carlton v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 244; 189 A Crim R 332
DJL v Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226
Ex parte Schofield; Re Austin (1953) 53 SR(NSW) 163
R v El-Zarw [1994] 2 Qd R 67
R v Wolverhampton Crown Court; Ex parte Crofts [1983] 1 WLR 204

TEXTS CITED: Aronson, Dyer and Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th ed, 2009) at [5.220]

PARTIES: Colin Bruce Williams - Applicant
Terry Arnold Blackley - First Respondent
Andrew Henry Van Kooten - Second Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2008/283744

COUNSEL: Applicant in person
First Respondent in person
No appearance - Second Respondent

SOLICITORS: Applicant in person
First Respondent in person
Second Respondent in person

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11393/08; SC 11394/08

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: R A Hulme J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 1 October 2009

CA 2009/283744

BASTEN JA
CAMPBELL JA
17 September 2010

Colin Bruce WILLIAMS v Terry BLACKLEY;

Colin Bruce WILLIAMS v Andrew Henry VAN KOOTEN

Judgment

1 BASTEN JA: On 1 October 2009 R A Hulme J dismissed a summons brought by the applicant, Mr Williams, against the respondents. The summons challenged the dismissal in the Local Court of two proceedings for assault brought by the applicant against each of the respondents. There has been delay at various stages in the procedural steps taken so far. It is, however, preferable to deal with the matter by reference to the substantive issues raised by the application. Before there can be a grant of leave to appeal, the Court must be satisfied that there is at least a reasonably arguable ground for challenging the decision of the Court below.

2 It seems to have been accepted in the Local Court that on the evening of Monday, 4 September 2006, the applicant was involved in a fracas in which he was injured. R A Hulme J stated that, in respect of Mr Van Kooten, the magistrate was satisfied that the…

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.

Continue reading WILLIAMS v Blackley

Details

AGLC: WILLIAMS v Blackley [2010] NSWCA 246
Case: [2010] NSWCA 246
Decision Date: 17 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Williams, sought leave to appeal against decisions of the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the respondent, Mr Blackley, who had been acquitted of criminal charges. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal involved an application for judicial review, which the court considered in the context of criminal proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether judicial review was available to quash an acquittal in criminal proceedings. A secondary issue concerned the costs of the proceedings, particularly in relation to a self-represented respondent.

The court determined that judicial review was not available to quash an acquittal in criminal proceedings, as this would undermine the finality of criminal judgments and the principles of double jeopardy. Applying the general rule that costs follow the event, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's reasonable expenses incurred in responding to the application, including any loss of wages from attending the hearing. No order was made as to the costs of Mr Van Kooten.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) In each matter, refuse leave to appeal.

(2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent Mr Blackley’s reasonable expenses incurred in responding to the application in this Court, including any loss of wages in attending today’s hearing.

(3) No order as to the costs of Mr Van Kooten.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	WILLIAMS v BLACKLEY [2010] NSWCA 246
HEARING DATE(S):	17 September 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 September 2010
JUDGMENT OF:	Basten JA at 1, 14; Campbell JA at 13, 17
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	17 September 2010
DECISION:	(1) In each matter, refuse leave to appeal. (2) Order the applicant to pay the respondent Mr Blackley’s reasonable expenses incurred in responding to the application in this Court, including any loss of wages in attending today’s hearing. (3) No order as to the costs of Mr Van Kooten.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - not available to quash acquittal in criminal proceedings - COSTS - general rule that costs follow the event - self-represented respondent - payment of reasonable expenses including lost wages
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). ss 23, 56 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 150 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
CASES CITED:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1 Carlton v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 244; 189 A Crim R 332 DJL v Central Authority [2000] HCA 17; 201 CLR 226 Ex parte Schofield; Re Austin (1953) 53 SR(NSW) 163 R v El-Zarw [1994] 2 Qd R 67 R v Wolverhampton Crown Court; Ex parte Crofts [1983] 1 WLR 204
TEXTS CITED:	Aronson, Dyer and Groves, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th ed, 2009) at [5.220]
PARTIES:	Colin Bruce Williams - Applicant Terry Arnold Blackley - First Respondent Andrew Henry Van Kooten - Second Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 2008/283744
COUNSEL:	Applicant in person First Respondent in person No appearance - Second Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant in person First Respondent in person Second Respondent in person
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 11393/08; SC 11394/08
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	R A Hulme J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:	1 October 2009