Yenuga v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

The applicant, Yenuga, sought judicial review of decisions made by the District Court of New South Wales. The District Court had dismissed his appeal against a conviction and subsequently refused to state a case. The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) was the respondent. The proceedings were before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the District Court had erred in law or jurisdiction in dismissing the applicant's appeal and in refusing to state a case. Specifically, the court considered whether the District Court judge had acted *functus officio* by revising transcripts of ex tempore judgments, whether there was an apprehension of bias due to the judge's communication with the respondent, whether there was any inconsistency between a State Act and a Commonwealth law, and whether the *Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2013* (NSW) lacked consonance with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. The court also considered whether the applicant's grounds of review were essentially challenges to factual findings, which would not ordinarily be grounds for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal found no jurisdictional error or error of law in the decisions of the District Court. The revision of transcripts was considered an orthodox practice and did not render the judgments void. The communication from the judge to the respondent, with the applicant copied, did not give rise to an apprehension of bias. No relevant Commonwealth law was identified for the purposes of an inconsistency challenge, and the challenge based on the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was deemed misconceived as the Act did not purport to enact the Declaration into domestic law. The court concluded that the applicant's grounds of review were either devoid of merit or constituted attempts to challenge factual findings, which were not permissible in this context.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicant an extension of time to apply for review of the District Court's judgment of 8 April 2021. However, the summons seeking review of the District Court's judgments of 8 April 2021 and 3 June 2021 was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the Director's costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.