Baker, S.J. v Campbell, R - [1982] FCA 233

Re: STEVEN JOHN BAKER
And: RAY CAMPBELL AND TERRENCE ROY McGUIGAN (1983) 66 FLR 29
No. WAG42 of 1982
Administrative Law - High Court and Federal Judiciary

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Keely J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - issue of search warrant - whether mental process of deciding to seek warrant is a "decision" - whether laying information before a justice of the Peace is a decision made "under an enactment" - whether decision to issue warrant is of an "administrative character" - whether mental process of deciding to execute warrant is a "decision" - whether attempt to execute warrant is a decision of an "administrative character" and made "under an enactment" - whether court has associated or implied incidental jurisdiction.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - ss. 3, 5, & 8

Crimes Act 1914 - s. 10

Administrative Law - Issue of search warrant - Whether Supreme Court of Western Australia had jurisdiction to grant injunction enjoining execution of search warrant - Interim order of Federal Court enjoining execution of search warrant - Whether Federal Court had jurisdiction - Whether decision to seek issue of search warrant was "decision" - Whether decision to seek search warrant was made "under an enactment" - Whether decision to issue search warrant was "decision of an administrative character" - Whether decision was of judicial nature - Whether decision to execute search warrant was "decision" or decision "under an enactment" - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss. 3, 5, 8 - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s. 10.

High Court and Federal Judiciary - Whether Federal Court had implied incidental jurisdiction or jurisdiction to determine alternative claim - Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s. 32(1).

HEADNOTE

On 6th July, 1982, the second respondent McG., who was a justice of the peace and a stipendiary magistrate exercising federal jurisdiction, issued a search warrant addressed to the first respondent C., who was a member of the Australian Federal Police and a "constable" within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1914.

The search warrant authorized the seizure of documents which there were reasonable grounds for believing would afford evidence of the commission of offences by the applicant B. and/or other named persons.

On 7th July, 1982, an injunction was granted by the Supreme Court of Western Australia enjoining C. from executing the search warrant. C. contended that, by virtue of s. 9(1)(d) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the Judicial Review Act) the Supreme Court of Western Australia did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as the execution of the warrant involved conduct engaged in by an officer of the Commonwealth.

On 7th October, 1982, upon B. giving certain undertakings, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia made an interim order enjoining C. from executing the search warrant. On 14th October, 1982, B. made an application for an order of review under the Judicial Review Act of the following decisions:…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker, S.J. v Campbell, R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1982] FCA 233
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 1982

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baker, S.J. v Campbell, R. was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, Baker, sought to appeal a decision made by the primary judge that the respondent, Campbell, was not liable for the alleged unlawful execution of a search warrant. The central issue was whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that the actions in question were related to the execution of a search warrant under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the mental process of deciding to seek a warrant was a "decision" under the Commonwealth Judicial Review Act, and whether laying information before a justice of the Peace was a decision made "under an enactment." The court also needed to determine whether the decision to issue the warrant was of an "administrative character" and whether the mental process of deciding to execute the warrant was a "decision." Additionally, the court examined whether the attempt to execute the warrant was a decision of an "administrative character" and made "under an enactment." Finally, the court considered whether it had associated or implied incidental jurisdiction.

The court found that the mental process of deciding to seek a warrant was not a "decision" under the Act, as it did not involve a determination of a substantive legal or factual issue. Regarding the laying of information before a justice of the Peace, the court concluded that it was not a decision made "under an enactment." The decision to issue the warrant was deemed to be of an administrative character and made "under an enactment." The mental process of deciding to execute the warrant was not considered a "decision," and the attempt to execute the warrant was not a decision of an "administrative character" or made "under an enactment." Consequently, the court determined that it did not have associated or implied incidental jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision that the respondent was not liable for the alleged unlawful execution of the search warrant. The court's reasoning centred on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the nature of the decisions involved in the execution of the warrant. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders