Allan, John Gerrard v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor Peter John Hardcastle v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

The applicants, Allan and Hardcastle, sought judicial review of a decision by the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, which had decided that disciplinary proceedings against them were not barred by virtue of the proceedings having been previously instituted before a Disciplinary Board, which had been abolished. The applicants sought a declaration that they were not liable to be subject to disciplinary proceedings in relation to the same offences and an injunction preventing the second respondent from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings. The applicants also sought orders quashing the decision of the Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal had erred in law in its consideration of the relevant statutory provisions.

The court was required to determine whether the proceedings before the Disciplinary Board constituted an estoppel preventing the Tribunal from hearing the same disciplinary charges. The court was also required to determine whether the term "disgraceful or improper conduct" embraced criminal conduct, and whether the applicants were protected from double jeopardy. Additionally, the court was required to determine whether the charges were bad for duplicity and whether the Tribunal had the power to amend the charges and direct that they be served on the applicants' solicitors.

The court held that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Board did not constitute an estoppel preventing the Tribunal from hearing the same disciplinary charges. The court held that the term "disgraceful or improper conduct" did not necessarily embrace criminal conduct, and that the applicants were not protected from double jeopardy. The court held that the charges were not bad for duplicity and that the Tribunal had the power to amend the charges and direct that they be served on the applicants' solicitors. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not flawed and dismissed the applicants' application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay one half of the costs of the firstnamed respondent of and incidental to this application and application No. ACT G5 of 1983. The court also ordered that the application be dismissed and that the applicants pay one half of the costs of the firstnamed respondent of and incidental to this application and application No. ACT G4 of 1983. Orders were made accordingly.