Buresti v Beveridge

[1998] FCA 1336

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – interpretation of the word “days” in s 203R Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (“the Act”) – whether the expression “60 days” as used in the section is inclusive or exclusive of weekends and public holidays – construction of the words “otherwise clearly intended” in the Act.

Customs Act 1901 (Cth) – ss 4(1), 28, 36(2), 64(a), 71, 72, 80, 81, 114, 116,198, 203R(1), 203S, 271

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – ss 3ZV, 3ZW

WORDS AND PHRASES – “days”;  “otherwise clearly intended”

In the Matter of The Fourth South Melbourne Building Society (1883) 9 VLR (Eq) 54 – referred to

Grain Elevators Board (Vic) v Dunmunkle Corporation (1946) 73 CLR 70 – referred to

AMOS DOMINIC BURESTI v
MALCOLM BEVERIDGE & ANOR

NG 724 of 1998

HILL J
SYDNEY
23 October 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 724  of  1998

BETWEEN:

AMOS DOMINIC BURESTI
Applicant

AND:

MALCOLM BEVERIDGE
First Respondent

JOHN BLANCH
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

HILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 October 1998

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. That the decision of the First Respondent, that the things seized as evidential material by officers of Customs under search warrants and referred to in the affidavit of John Blanch sworn 17 June 1998 be retained for a further period of three months; ie until 28 September 1998, be set aside.

1. The Second Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant of the application.

1. There be no order as to the costs of the First Respondent.

Note:  Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 724 of 1998

BETWEEN:

AMOS DOMINIC BURESTI
Applicant

AND:

MALCOLM BEVERIDGE
First Respondent

JOHN BLANCH
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	HILL J
DATE:	23 October 1998
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Applicant, Mr Amos Dominic Buresti, applies to the Court to review a decision of Mr Beveridge, sitting as a magistrate in the Sydney Local Court (“the First Respondent”).  The decision was given in proceedings in which Mr John Blanch, an officer of Customs and the Second Respondent to the present application, applied on 19 June 1998 for an order that various items seized by officers of Customs under search warrants be retained by Customs for a further period of three months, that is to say, until 28 September 1998.  That application was ultimately granted.

The facts which give rise to the application for judicial review are agreed between the parties.  They are as follows:

1. On 8 April 1998 search warrants issued to search various premises and authorising the seizure of things in those premises bearing the description in the search warrants.  The warrants in question are those referred to in paragraph 6 of an affidavit of Mr Blanch, sworn on 17 June 1998.

1. On 9 April 1998 the relevant warrants were executed and items seized under them.  It is not suggested that the items…