Woods v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Fantakis v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Two applicants, Woods and Fantakis, applied for judicial review of the decisions of a magistrate not to grant an adjournment of a hearing in their criminal proceedings. Both applicants were self-represented and in custody. They sought leave to inspect the relevant transcripts of their earlier hearings and to have a representative appointed to assist them in the application. The applicants contended that the magistrate's decisions were flawed because they did not take into account the applicants' lack of legal representation and their inability to inspect the transcripts of their earlier hearings. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) opposed the application. The applicants argued that the magistrate's decisions were not in accordance with the law because they were not procedurally fair, as the applicants did not have an opportunity to respond to the evidence that was relied upon by the magistrate.

The court had to determine whether the magistrate's decisions were reviewable and, if so, whether they were flawed. The court had to consider whether the magistrate's decisions were in accordance with the law and whether they were procedurally fair. The court had to consider whether the applicants' lack of legal representation and inability to inspect the transcripts of their earlier hearings affected the magistrate's decisions. The court also had to consider whether the applicants' self-represented status and custody affected their ability to make an effective application for judicial review.

The court found that the magistrate's decisions were reviewable and that they were flawed. The court found that the magistrate's decisions were not in accordance with the law because they did not take into account the applicants' lack of legal representation and their inability to inspect the transcripts of their earlier hearings. The court found that the applicants' self-represented status and custody did not affect their ability to make an effective application for judicial review. The court found that the applicants' lack of legal representation and inability to inspect the transcripts of their earlier hearings affected the magistrate's decisions because they prevented the applicants from effectively responding to the evidence that was relied upon by the magistrate. The court found that the magistrate's decisions were not procedurally fair because the applicants did not have an opportunity to respond to the evidence that was relied upon by the magistrate. The court granted the application and ordered that the magistrate's decisions be quashed.