Huynh v Attorney General (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 190

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Huynh v Attorney General (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 190 Hearing dates: 27 July 2023 Date of orders: 16 August 2023 Decision date: 16 August 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Kirk JA at [55]; Simpson AJA at [56] Decision: 1. Order that pursuant to s 6(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) the application for judicial review be determined by the Court of Appeal. 2. The proceedings should be listed before the Registrar for the making of directions for written submissions in relation to the application and the setting of a further date for its hearing if the parties do not otherwise consent to the application being determined on the papers. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – cross-vesting – transfer to Federal Court – whether special federal matter – whether a matter arising under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – whether a matter within the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court – where underlying proceedings concern an application for judicial review of a decision of a Supreme Court judge acting persona designate not to order a post-appeal inquiry in the Court of Criminal Appeal – s 78(1)(b) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) – where post-appeal inquiry procedures "picked up" and applied as surrogate federal laws by virtue of s 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of convictions for Commonwealth offences – where proceedings on remitted from the High Court of Australia CIVIL PROCEDURE – cross-vesting – transfer to Federal Court – whether special reasons for the proceedings to be determined by the Court of Appeal – s 6(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) – where Commonwealth legislative scheme for criminal procedure favours territorial not national uniformity – where Court of Appeal possesses practical familiarity with the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) – where lengthy procedural history – where Applicant self-represented Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 13 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 3, 5, 9 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Pt 7 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.5(1) and 307.11(1) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 39, 39B Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) ss 3, 4, 6 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) s 13A(3A) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ss 65, 69, 101 Cases Cited: Anglo American Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2017) 347 ALR 134; [2017] NSWCA 17 Attorney-General (Cth) v Huynh (2023) 97 ALJR 298; [2023] HCA 13 Attorney-General (Cth) v Ogawa (2020) 281 FCR 1; [2020] FCAFC 180 Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513; [2004] HCA 45 Buttrose v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 324 ALR 562; [2015] NSWCA 221 Clark v Attorney General (NSW) [2020] NSWCA 70 Cranney v R; Huynh v R (2017) 269 A Crim R 449; [2017] NSWCCA 234 Eastman v Besanko (2010) 244 FLR 262; [2010] ACTCA 15 GAR v Attorney General (NSW) (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 314 Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7 Henry v Hancock [2016] NSWSC 71 Holzinger v Attorney-General (Qld) (2020) 5 QR 314; [2020] QCA 165 Hopkins v Governor-General of Australia (2013) 280 FLR 49; [2013] NSWCA 365 Huynh v Attorney General (NSW) (2021) 107 NSWLR 75; [2021] NSWCA 297 Huynh v R [2022] NSWCCA 45 Huynh v The Queen [2019] HCASL 6 Jin Niu Investments Pty Ltd v Wang [2019] NSWSC 1697 Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533; [1983] FCA 254 Lodhi v Attorney General (NSW) (2013) 241 A Crim R 477; [2013] NSWCA 433 Martens v The Commonwealth (2009) 174 FCR 114; [2009] FCA 207 ML v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2013) 276 FLR 14; [2013] NSWCA 109 Montgomery v Porter [2019] NSWSC 1524 Moore v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2023] NSWCA 153 O'Donoghue v Ireland (2008) 234 CLR 599; [2008] HCA 14 Patsalis v Attorney General (NSW) (2013) 85 NSWLR 463; [2013] NSWCA 343 R v Cranney; R v Huynh [2015] NSWDC 276 R v Gee (2003) 212 CLR 230; [2003] HCA 12 R v Murray and Cormie (1916) 22 CLR 437; [1916] HCA 58 Re Grinter; Ex parte Hall (2004) 28 WAR 427; [2004] WASCA 79 Sallway (in their capacity as liquidators of MB Australia Pty Ltd) v Citadel Group Properties Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 709 Sinkovich v Attorney General (NSW) (2013) 85 NSWLR 783; [2013] NSWCA 383 Varley v Attorney General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 30 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Mr Huy Huynh (Applicant) Attorney General of New South Wales (First Respondent) Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Second Respondent) Supreme Court of New South Wales (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: