On 13 March 2012 the applicant was arrested by officers of the NSW Police Force, and charged with a series of serious firearms offences, one of which was an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, and others which were offences against laws of NSW ("the State charges"). On 24 January 2013, by arrangement between the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("the CDPP") and the Director of Public Prosecutions for NSW ("the NSWDPP"), the CDPP assumed the role of prosecuting all charges. On 9 December 2013 committal proceedings commenced in the Local Court. On 13 December 2013 the evidence in the proceedings concluded, and the proceedings were adjourned to enable the parties to file and serve written submissions. On 28 February 2014, the applicant entered a plea of guilty to the Commonwealth charge; the parties made oral submissions with respect to the State charges. The applicant then raised an issue as to the authority of the CDPP to prosecute the State charges. On 16 December 2014 Magistrate Favretto found that the CDPP had lawful authority to carry on the prosecution of the State charges.
By Summons filed in the Supreme Court on 13 January 2015 the applicant sought various orders. One order sought was for leave, pursuant to s 53(3)(a) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) ("the Appeal and Review Act"), to appeal against the determination of the magistrate that the CDPP had the authority to prosecute the State charges. Another order sought was an order in the nature of certiorari, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), quashing that determination.
On 3 February 2015, on the applicant's application, Button J granted a stay of the committal proceedings, finding that the applicant had a "reasonably arguable" case with respect to the issues raised in the Summons of 13 January.
On 5 June 2015 Bellew J dismissed that Summons. He held that the determination of the magistrate was not an "order" for the purposes of s 53(3)(a) of the Appeal and Review Act which provides:
"(3) Any person against whom:
(a) an order has been made by a Magistrate in relation to the person in any committal proceedings …
…
may appeal to the Supreme Court against the order, but only on a ground that involves a question of law alone, and only by leave of the Supreme Court."
He further held that the applicant had not established relevant error for the purposes of s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW). In those circumstances, it was unnecessary that he determine the authority of the CDPP to prosecute the State charges.
Bellew J did not interfere with the stay ordered by Button J, which, therefore, continued in force.
On 26 June 2015 the applicant filed a second Summons in the Supreme Court. On this occasion he sought an order that the CDPP be restrained from further carrying on the committal proceedings, and a declaration that the CDPP had no power under the relevant legislation (the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) ("the CDPP Act")) to carry on the committal proceedings against the applicant. The basis of this application lay in s 6(1)(m) of the CDPP Act. Section 6(1) sets out the functions of the Director, of which one is:
"(m) where the [CDPP], with the consent of the Attorney-General, holds an appointment to prosecute offences against the laws of a State - to institute and carry on, in accordance with the terms of the appointment, prosecutions for such offences …"
It was not in issue that the CDPP had the consent of the Attorney General to, and did, hold an appointment to prosecute offences against the laws of NSW. Put briefly, the argument was that the phrase "institute and carry on" in s 6(1)(m) is a composite, or ought to be read conjunctively, with the effect that the CDPP had power only to prosecute offences that he had instituted. Bellew J rejected that argument and dismissed the Summons. He made an order vacating the stay ordered by Button J. In reaching his conclusion he relied upon and adopted a decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland in R v Dexter. [1]
On 20 August 2015, the applicant filed in this Court a Summons seeking leave to appeal against that decision of Bellew J, and the Notice of Motion to which I have already referred. I was told that the matter was urgent because Magistrate Favretto was, subject to any order of this Court, proposing to deliver judgment on the committal of the applicant at 2.00pm on that day. I was also told that the applicant is in custody, an application for bail having been refused on 29 August 2013.
When asked to explain the urgency of the matter, counsel for the applicant asserted that, if and when an order for the committal for trial of the applicant is made, the CDPP would be in a position to file a bill of indictment, thus rectifying any defect in his conduct of the proceedings to date. That is because, on counsel's argument, the filing of a bill of indictment is or could be seen as the institution of proceedings for the purposes of s 6(1)(m). Counsel expressly acknowledged that Magistrate Favretto is entitled to make an order for committal (notwithstanding the asserted defect in the prosecution arising out of the asserted absence of lawful authority in the CDPP to prosecute in the committal proceedings).
Moreover, counsel relied upon s 61 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), which relevantly provides:
"(1) If the prosecutor fails to appear on the day and at the time and place set for taking prosecution evidence in any committal proceedings, the Magistrate must:
(a) discharge the accused person as to the offence the subject of the proceedings, or
(b) if the Magistrate thinks it appropriate, adjourn the hearing to a specified time and place.
(2) …
(3) …"
His argument was that, if the appearance of the CDPP in the prosecution of the State charges was not authorised, there had, in effect, been no appearance by "the prosecutor", and the magistrate would have been obliged to take one or the other of the two courses of action specified - discharge the applicant, or adjourn the proceedings.
The reasons I dismissed the Notice of Motion were:
(i) There have been lengthy delays in the proceedings. The applicant has been in custody since 13 March 2012. The committal proceedings themselves concluded (other than for the making of orders) on 28 February 2014.
(ii) There is no practical utility in ordering a stay which would preclude Magistrate Favretto from determining whether or not the applicant is to be committed for trial. Should Magistrate Favretto order that the applicant be committed for trial, there will necessarily be an interval before arrangements can be made for trial. That is ample opportunity for the applicant to seek any relevant relief. There is no merit in the claim that any advantage to the applicant would be destroyed by the filing of a bill of indictment. Even if Bellew J were wrong (and I do not think that he was) to find that the CDPP had authority to prosecute the State charges, and, as a consequence, the order for committal was invalid (which was not, in any event, the applicant's position), it would be open to either the NSWDPP or the CDPP to file an ex officio indictment.
(iii) There is no merit in the s 61 (Criminal Procedure Act) argument. It is, to me, virtually inconceivable that a magistrate would take the step of discharging a person facing serious charges in circumstances where the (State) prosecution was unrepresented by reason of confusion over which of two prosecuting authorities was to assume the conduct of the prosecution. Again, even if Magistrate Favretto took that course, it could easily be remedied by the filing of an ex officio indictment.
(iv) The fundamental argument appears to me to lack any semblance of merit. Dexter was a 2002 decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal; Bellew J expressly noted his agreement with it. An application for special leave was made to the High Court of Australia and refused, on the ground that the decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave. [2]
Accordingly, I dismissed the Notice of Motion.
[2]
Endnotes
[2002] QCA 540; 136 A Crim R 276.
Dexter v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 229.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 27 August 2015
Solicitors:
Hanna Legal (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (First Respondent)
Submitting appearance (Second Respondent)
File Number(s): 2015/243557
Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court
Citation: El-Ali v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Local Court of NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1134
Date of Decision: 19 August 2015
Before: Bellew J
File Number(s): 2015/188030