Wyse v District Court

The applicant, Wyse, sought judicial review of a decision by a District Court judge who had refused to grant an apprehended violence order against the respondent. The dispute concerned whether the applicant could reasonably apprehend personal violence from the respondent, notwithstanding a significant lapse of time since their last interaction and the respondent's relocation.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred in law by failing to grant the apprehended violence order. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of sections 562B(1) and 562GA of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) in circumstances where the alleged threat of violence was remote in time and the respondent had moved away.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had not erred in law. The court reasoned that the reasonableness of an apprehension of personal violence must be assessed in light of all relevant circumstances, including the passage of time and changes in the parties' situations. In this instance, the significant lapse of time and the respondent's relocation were material factors that diminished the reasonableness of the applicant's apprehension. The court affirmed that an apprehended violence order requires a present and reasonable apprehension of future violence, not merely a fear based on past events that are no longer indicative of a current threat.

The summons for judicial review was dismissed.