Chapman, E.M.M. v Reilly, J.D

[1985] FCA 185

Re: EARNEST MAX McLEOD CHAPMAN
And: JOHN DANIEL REILLY and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
No. ACT G 88 of 1983
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Neaves J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Police - Review of decision declining to appoint applicant as a constable - Whether decision-maker bound to observe rules of natural justice - Legitimate expectation - Whether rules of natural justice observed.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, s.5

Australian Federal Police Act 1979, s.26(1)(a)

Australian Federal Police Regulations, reg.6

HEARING

CANBERRA
#DATE 14:5:1985

ORDER

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application.
   
   Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
   

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an application by Earnest Max McLeod Chapman ("the applicant") for an order of review under section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. What, according to the amended application filed herein, is sought to be reviewed is "the decision and conduct of John Daniel Reilly, Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Force, in withdrawing the offer of appointment to the said Police Force previously made to the applicant and in refusing to appoint the applicant".

1. The Australian Federal Police is established by the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. At all times material to the resolution of the issues that arise in this proceeding, paragraph 26(1)(a) of that Act provided that, subject to the Act, the Commissioner of Police might, by instrument in writing, appoint a person to be a non-commissioned officer in a component of the Australian Federal Police, being an appointment to a rank that the person was, in accordance with the regulations, competent and qualified to hold. As regulation 5 of the Australian Federal Police Regulations did not apply in the case of the applicant, the relevant provision in those regulations was sub-regulation 6(1) which provided -
   
   

"6.(1) Except where regulation 5 applies, a person is, for the purposes of paragraph 26(1)(a) or 26(1)(c) of the Act, competent and qualified to hold the rank of Constable in the Australian Federal Police if the person -

(a) is an Australian citizen;

(b) except in the case of a person in respect of whom the Commissioner has made a determination under sub-regulation (4), has attained the age of 18 years but has not attained the age of 31 years;

(c) unless the Commissioner otherwise decides, is not less than -

(i) in the case of a male person - 175 centimetres in height; or

(ii) in the case of a female person - 160 centimetres in height;

(d) has been certified by a medical practitioner approved by the Commissioner to be in good health, of sound constitution and fit both physically and mentally to perform the duties of a Constable;

(e) has produced evidence, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, of his good character and reputation and, where the person has,…