Chapman, E.M. v Reilly, J.D - [1986] FCA 270

Re: EARNEST MAX McLEOD CHAPMAN
And: JOHN DANIEL REILLY and THE COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
No. ACT G31 of 1985
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.
Toohey J.
Sheppard J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - judicial review - decision withdrawing offer of appointment to Federal Police - resignation from current position - whether legitimate expectation of appointment - whether duty to accord procedural fairness - whether considerations leading to decision sufficiently put to appellant - whether procedural fairness denied to appellant

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.5

Australian Federal Police Act 1979 s.26

Australian Federal Police Regulations r.6

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 15:7:1986

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an appeal from a judgment of this Court dismissing an application by the appellant under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The application was, in its terms, "to review 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."
It was common ground that the decision and conduct complained of appeared in a letter written by the first respondent, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, on 13 July 1983 to the appellant. It is desirable to set out the operative part of the letter in full.

" I refer to a letter dated 27 June 1983 from Inspector VINCENT offering you appointment as a Constable with the Australian Federal Police. Your reply of acceptance, in paragraph three, acknowledged that the offer was conditional upon the satisfactory completion of other matters and that the disclosure of new information could lead to annulment of your appointment.

As the result of information which has come to my attention, including that provided by you during our meeting of 12th July, I have decided, because of matters not disclosed in your original application or at your subsequent interview with the recruiting officer, that the offer of appointment to the Australian Federal Police previously made to you is withdrawn. Accordingly, you will not be required to report to the Officer in Charge, Recruiting Branch on Monday 18 July 1983 as previously arranged."

The appellant was, in 1983, a Detective Senior Constable in the New South Wales Police Force, stationed at Queanbeyan. In May that year he submitted an application to join the Australian Federal Police. He had been with the New South Wales police since 1968 but wished to leave because of a pending transfer from Queanbeyan to Sydney.

Paragraph 26(1)(a) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 empowers the Commissioner of Police, by instrument in writing, to appoint a person to be a non-commissioned officer, being an appointment that the person is, in…

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.

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

Details

AGLC: Chapman, E.M. v Reilly, J.D. & Anor [1986] FCA 270
Case: [1986] FCA 270
Decision Date: 15 JULY 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapman v Reilly concerns a challenge to the decision by the Commissioner of the Federal Police to withdraw an offer of appointment to the appellant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, Chapman, sought judicial review of the decision to withdraw the offer, arguing that she had a legitimate expectation of the appointment and that the decision-making process did not accord with procedural fairness. The respondents, Reilly and others, defended the decision, asserting that no legitimate expectation existed and that procedural fairness was properly observed.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether Chapman had a legitimate expectation of the appointment that entitled her to procedural fairness and whether the decision-making process sufficiently disclosed the considerations that led to the withdrawal of the offer. The court had to determine if the procedural fairness owed to Chapman was adequately observed when the offer was withdrawn. Specifically, the court examined whether the appellant was given an opportunity to respond to the key issues that influenced the decision.

The court concluded that Chapman did not have a legitimate expectation of the appointment that triggered a duty of procedural fairness. It found that the process leading to the withdrawal of the offer was reasonable and that Chapman was provided with an opportunity to address the critical issues. The court held that the considerations leading to the decision were sufficiently disclosed to Chapman, and therefore, she was not denied procedural fairness. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Chapman was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.