Re East; Ex parte Nguyen [1998] HCA 73

High Court of Australia Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ Gleeson CJ Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ Re East; Ex parte Nguyen (M53/1997) [1998] HCA 73

ORDER Application dismissed with costs

The following written reasons for judgment were published:—

3 December 1998 Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ.

1. The applicant, Quoc Phu Nguyen, commenced proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the Court seeking orders of certiorari and declaratory relief. On 31 July 1997, a Justice of the Court ordered pursuant to O 55, r 2 of the High Court Rules 1952 (Cth) that the application be made by notice of motion to the Full Court. At the conclusion of a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the application with costs, stating that reasons for the decision would be given at a later date. The following are our reasons.

2. The proceedings arose out of a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant by the Chief Judge of the County Court of Victoria. The applicant made two applications to the Supreme Court of Victoria for remedies in the nature of prerogative relief. Those applications failed. This Court refused his applications for special leave to appeal from the decisions of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeals. In the present proceedings, the applicant has joined, as respondents, the person in whose name the charge against him was laid, the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Sunshine, the County Court of Victoria, and the Governor of Fulham Prison. The second, third, and fourth respondents have submitted. The Attorney-General of Victoria and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth have intervened in support of the first respondent.

3. There arose a question whether the proceedings come within the original jurisdiction of this Court and whether any prima facie basis of a claim for relief had been shown. If the question had been answered favourably to the applicant, then issues of fact would have arisen for determination and it would have been appropriate for the matter to be remitted to another court for their resolution.