Australia, July 23 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 23:

1. LEEMING JA: This matter was referred to me by the Registrar in response to the suggestion by the first respondent, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, that this proceeding seeking judicial review of the dismissal for want of prosecution of an all grounds appeal to the District Court from the Local Court was one that was suitable for the appointment of an amicus. Such a referral is not opposed by the plaintiff, Ms Clara Khamiss, who appears for herself. The issues emerge reasonably clearly from her written submissions filed on 24 March 2025 of some 16 pages and, more particularly, those filed recently, prepared by Ms Roy of counsel for the Director, of 51 pages on 20 June 2025.

2. The essence of the position is as follows. Ms Khamiss was convicted in the Local Court of an offence of intimidation pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW). She brought an appeal to the District Court of New South Wales which was dismissed for want of prosecution. In these further proceedings, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), Ms Khamiss asserts that both the Local Court and District Court decisions are affected by jurisdictional error, and her submissions identify a number of paths said to lead to that conclusion.

3. The Director draws particular attention to a concession. It is formally conceded in the response to the further amended summons filed on 26 May 2025 that jurisdictional error on the basis of apprehended bias as identified in ground 2 of that summons on the part of the Local Court is made out. However, the Director maintains that that does not give rise to any entitlement to relief pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, because, so it is contended, the Local Court's judgment or order was superseded by that of the District Court dismissing her appeal.

4. Two additional matters should be mentioned. The first is that there is, according to the Director's written submissions, some disparity between the reasons given by the District Court, which referred to the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, and the order recorded in JusticeLink, which adopted the traditional language of confirming the conviction. The second is the matter raised by Bell P in South Eastern Local Health District v Lazarus [2020] NSWCA 183; 284 A Crim R 342 at [23] concerning the effect of the change of language in the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) from that which had appeared in the Justices Act 1902 (NSW). There is consideration of aspects of these issues, by reference to Wishart v Fraser (1941) 64 CLR 470; [1941] HCA 8, in the same judgment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197a560959a88aa91a1ffbf4)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.