Crane v Gething

[2000] FCA 762

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Crane v Gething [2000] FCA 762

DECLARATION – criminal investigation – circumstances where intervention of declaratory relief is undesirable.

ARTHUR WINSTON CRANE v RONALD JOHN GETHING & ORS

W 38 of 2000

BURCHETT, LEE AND HELY JJ
2 JUNE 2000
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT

 REGISTRY

W 38 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ARTHUR WINSTON CRANE
Appellant

AND:

RONALD JOHN GETHING
First Respondent

PHILIP RAYMOND THOMPSON
Second Respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Third Respondent

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, LEE AND HELY JJ
DATE:	2 JUNE 2000
PLACE:	PERTH

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. BURCHETT J:   This appeal seeks to have the Court make a declaration of entitlement which, if accepted by all concerned - there would be a question whether it could have a relevant binding effect - would impact upon and possibly predetermine an investigation by the authorities of suspected offences.  The learned trial judge, French J, examined the relevant authorities at length and concluded in paragraph 32 of his reasons as follows:

   “Where, as in this case, a claim for relief is made after an investigation has commenced and collateral to an attack on a search warrant issued in connection with that investigation, and where, as here, the claim for relief depends upon findings by the Court on the very matters of fact under investigation, the claim involves an unproductive interference with the normal processes of investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.   … The factual matters asserted by Senator Crane in aid of his claim are not conceded by the third respondent.  Nor could they be, for those very matters are the subject of investigation.  In my opinion this case is well outside the range of cases in which the Court could properly entertain an application for declaratory relief.  That element of Senator Crane's application fails.”

2. We agree.  We do not think any useful purpose would be served by restating this reasoning, which his Honour has already stated so clearly.  For the reasons he gave, as quoted, we dismiss this appeal with costs.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:             13 June 2000

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr P W Nichols and Mr J A Davies
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Davies & Co
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent:	Mr S M Davies
Solicitor for the 3rd Respondent:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of Hearing:	2 June 2000
Date of Judgment:	2 June 2000