Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hunter v Chief Registrar of Local Court of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 79 Hearing dates: 14 February 2014 Decision date: 14 February 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: Summons filed 20 November 2013 dismissed Catchwords: APPEAL AND REVIEW - criminal proceedings - application by plaintiff to transfer criminal proceedings to another court - Local Court refuses application - application to Supreme Court for order - no right of appeal - whether prerogative relief was sought - absence of the reasons of the Local Court - inappropriate to make declaration Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Supreme Court Act 1970 Cases Cited: Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & WorkCover NSW [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Terrence Geoffrey Hunter (Plaintiff) Chief Registrar of Local Court of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: No appearance (Plaintiff) In person (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) In person (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/350721 Judgment 1The Plaintiff, by Summons filed on 20 November 2013, seeks two orders: (i)A declaration that the Plaintiff have his defence to prosecution heard at the Local Court of NSW, Downing Centre Registry; (ii)The prosecution is stayed until the Summons is heard. 2The Plaintiff appears for himself today. He informs me that the Police Prosecutor has been advised of his application but is not intending to appear. There is some correspondence that has been filed in support of the Summons, demonstrating that the Police oppose the order that he seeks to transfer the proceedings. 3The Plaintiff has been charged with supply and possession offences concerning prohibited drugs, contrary to section 25 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The documents indicate that, ultimately, the matter will be dealt with on indictment. 4It is not clear to me from the material if what is proposed to be determined at Sutherland Local Court are committal proceedings only or something else. There was no evidence about whether a plea has been, or is to be, entered. 5In any event, the Plaintiff made application to the Local Court at Sutherland to transfer the proceedings to the Downing Centre. The basis for this is that the Plaintiff, from time to time, acts as a McKenzie friend to litigants appearing at the Sutherland court. He says that, as a result of so acting, his role has strained relationships at the court and he has concerns about whether he will be accorded procedural fairness in that court. He points out also that the other persons who have been charged with him in relation to these offences are to be dealt with at the Downing Centre. 6Mr Hunter's case is listed at the Sutherland Local Court because he asked if he could be charged at Sutherland or in that area because he resided at Cronulla. At the time he was not aware that such a request would result in the proceedings being listed at the Sutherland Local Court. He points out that the police concerned are based in Surry Hills and that the allegations relate to Marrickville where the offences, it appears, are alleged to have been committed. 7There might, in substance, be some basis for transferring the proceedings. I do not know why the Local Court at Sutherland did not transfer them because no reasons for their decision have been provided to me at this hearing. 8The difficulty for the Plaintiff is to show what jurisdiction this Court has to hear his Summons. Section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 gives any court the power to change the venue for criminal proceedings which are before it. That was no doubt the basis of the jurisdiction that the Registrar at Sutherland Local Court exercised. However, it is necessary to point to some legislative basis for any appeal or review of that decision to come to this court. 9Section 52 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 gives a person a right to appeal to this Court if that person has been convicted or sentenced by a Local Court and the only ground for the appeal involves a question of law. Section 53 provides for an appeal with leave where there are questions of fact involved but again, only where the person appealing has been convicted or sentenced by the Local Court. There does not appear to be any power under that Act for preliminary or procedural decisions to be reviewed. 10This Court, of course, has power as a superior court of record, to issue orders in the nature of prerogative writs. Section 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 confirms the jurisdiction which this Court undoubtedly has. This has also has recently been confirmed in the High Court's decision in Kirk V Industrial Relations Commission of NSW & WorkCover NSW [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531 11If Mr Hunter is seeking to obtain a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the Registrar, he would at least have to show that there was an error of law on the face of the record. It would appear, as I have said, that the Registrar had jurisdiction to make the order. Because I do not have any reasons of the Registrar for refusing the transfer of venue, it is not possible for me to conclude, one way or the other, whether the Registrar has made an error that would entitle me to issue an order in the nature of certiorari. 12I note that Mr Hunter's Summons, in form, seeks a declaration. This Court has wide power to issue declarations but ordinarily will be guided by legislative intent if a declaration has the potential to conflict with other provisions that limit or restrict a right to come to this Court. It does not appear that this Court is given jurisdiction to review preliminary and procedural decisions of the Local Court in criminal matters unless by its prerogative jurisdiction. 13The proper method of challenging the refusal of the Local Court to transfer the proceedings is to seek prerogative relief. To do so successfully necessarily requires the Local Court's record including its reasons to be available. It would be inappropriate to make a declaration in the absence of such material. Nor would it be appropriate to issue a declaration that the proceedings should be transferred simply because that is the order I would have made if making the decision at first instance. To make a declaration in either such case would result in conflicting decisions. The Registrar's order would remain in the absence of an order quashing it. 14In those circumstances, the Summons must be dismissed. 15The Summons filed 20 November 2013 is dismissed. ********** 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: 24 February 2014