or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses judicial review where it was claimed that a District judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in transferring a prosecution from one District to another, on the grounds that: the actions were done within jurisdiction; no relief is sought in this application concerning any of the interim orders made in the other district; and these orders did not effect jurisdiction.
Judicial review – criminal law - claimed that a District Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in transferring a prosecution from one District Court district to another - District Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in the exercise of his judicial powers in dealing with the matter on various dates in the other district – acted in breach of statute in transferring the case to another district – District Court areas – chronology – judge temporarily assigned to a district – adjourned to different district – adjourned back to original jurisdiction – convicted in original jurisdiction - undoubted jurisdiction – statement of grounds - no relief sought in these proceedings against that transfer order – case has nothing at all to do with the Rules of the District Court - no suggestion that there has been any breach of fair procedures - only criticism is that some material was provided to him when he was sitting in a different district – material which, the court notes, the learned District Judge at no point said that he was ignoring - statutory provisions of interest and some related case-law - actions were done within jurisdiction and are not contended otherwise to have been done - no relief is sought in this application concerning any of the interim order – orders did not effect jurisdiction – judicial review refused –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.