District Court’s reversal of earlier decision on jurisdiction was unfair

High Court allows applicant to amend statement of grounds and grants certiorari of the District Court's decision to refuse jurisdiction, finding that: (a) the decision was not irrational and reasons were given, where the judge had not been given precisely the same evidence on the second occasion as he was on the first, and was not informed on the second occasion that the DPP had directed summary disposal; further, he was not informed of his own previous decision to accept jurisdiction; (b) the selective factual background given to the judge on the second occasion, including the failure to advise the court that the accused was excused from being present and that the court had previously accepted jurisdiction, amounted to a lack of fair procedures; and (c) although the applicant’s representation was in part responsible for the difficulties, the matter was in for mention only to fix a date and the applicant had been excused from attending; any deficiency should be addressed by a costs order and not by refusing the relief sought.