Potier v Magistrate Moore & Anor [2004] NSWSC 1131

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Potier v Magistrate Moore & Anor [2004] NSWSC 1131 HEARING DATE(S) : 23 November 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J DECISION : Summons dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : whether procedural fairness was denied - jurisdiction - conviction of indictable offence - Felons (Civil Procedings) Act 1981 - abuse of process Bail Act 1978 s9, s30AA, s32(1) Crimes Act 1900 s26 LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 s97, s98 Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 s4, s5 Interpretation Act 1987 Local Court (Criminal and Applications Procedure) Rule 2003 Regina v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136 Potier v District Court of NSW [2004] NSWCA 303 CASES CITED : Potier v DPP [2001] NSWSC 514; 123 A Crim R 176 Potier v Magistrate Huber [2004] NSWSC 720 Potier v Magistrate Maughan [2004] NSWSC 590 Malcolm Huntley Potier - Plaintiff PARTIES : Magistrate A Moore - First Defendant Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Second Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 13411/04 COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : Plaintiff in person H Langley (DPP) - Second Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Thursday 25 November 2004

13411/04 Malcolm Huntley Potier v Magistrate A Moore & Anor

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: By handwritten summons filed in this Court on 20 October 2004, the plaintiff, Malcolm Huntley Potier, claims: "1) An order of certiorari against the first defendant as regards his deliberations, interim rulings and eventual findings in the Central Local Court in Sydney as regards the bail application heard in that Court on 8th and 13th September 2004. 2) Any other order that this Court may see fit to grant." 2 The summons named "Magistrate A Moore" as the first defendant and the Director of Public Prosecutions as the second defendant. Essentially, as I understand his argument, the plaintiff claims that, during the course of the hearing of an application under the Bail Act 1978, the first defendant denied the plaintiff procedural fairness. I will return to the substance of this claim in due course. 3 On the hearing of the summons the plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. The first defendant filed a submitting appearance. The second defendant, which had not filed an appearance, appeared conditionally. That was because the second defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the subject matter of the summons. That issue should be determined first.