sec.40Power of Supreme Court judge on review

### sec.40 Power of Supreme Court judge on review A Supreme Court judge may, by order, affirm the transfer decision or declare the transfer decision to be of no effect. The judge may declare the transfer decision to be of no effect only if the judge is satisfied— the transfer decision was so unreasonable that no person having the functions of the Chief Magistrate could properly consider the transfer decision to be a reasonable exercise of the Chief Magistrate’s discretion; or the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness by the Chief Magistrate. Each party to the review must bear the party’s own costs. However, the judge may award costs to the applicant if, in exceptional circumstances, the judge considers that an award of costs is appropriate. A declaration that the transfer decision is of no effect is not, of itself, exceptional circumstances for subsection (4) . No appeal lies from the judge’s decision on the transfer decision and costs. s 40 ins 2003 No. 86 s 8 (sec.40-ssec.1) A Supreme Court judge may, by order, affirm the transfer decision or declare the transfer decision to be of no effect. (sec.40-ssec.2) The judge may declare the transfer decision to be of no effect only if the judge is satisfied— the transfer decision was so unreasonable that no person having the functions of the Chief Magistrate could properly consider the transfer decision to be a reasonable exercise of the Chief Magistrate’s discretion; or the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness by the Chief Magistrate. (sec.40-ssec.3) Each party to the review must bear the party’s own costs. (sec.40-ssec.4) However, the judge may award costs to the applicant if, in exceptional circumstances, the judge considers that an award of costs is appropriate. (sec.40-ssec.5) A declaration that the transfer decision is of no effect is not, of itself, exceptional circumstances for subsection (4) . (sec.40-ssec.6) No appeal lies from the judge’s decision on the transfer decision and costs. - (a) the transfer decision was so unreasonable that no person having the functions of the Chief Magistrate could properly consider the transfer decision to be a reasonable exercise of the Chief Magistrate’s discretion; or - (b) the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness by the Chief Magistrate.