Crowd Controllers Act 1999 (TAS)

The matter involved an appeal by the Commissioner of Police against a decision of a magistrate that a prohibition order made against the appellant was invalid. The appellant, as the Commissioner of Police, sought to have a prohibition order enforced against a person who had been convicted of an offence against the Crowd Controllers Act 1999 (TAS). The respondent argued that the magistrate had erred in concluding that the prohibition order was invalid because the Commissioner had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to serve a copy of the application on the respondent. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the failure to serve a copy of the application on the respondent rendered the prohibition order invalid.

The Court held that the failure to serve a copy of the application on the respondent did not invalidate the prohibition order. The Court noted that the statutory requirement to serve a copy of the application was a procedural requirement and that the failure to comply with the requirement did not affect the substantive validity of the prohibition order. The Court held that the prohibition order was valid and enforceable. The Court further held that the Commissioner had the power to delegate the function of serving a copy of the application to another person, and that the failure to serve a copy of the application on the respondent did not amount to a failure to comply with the statutory requirement.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the magistrate. The Court held that the prohibition order was valid and enforceable, and that the Commissioner had the power to delegate the function of serving a copy of the application to another person. The Court further held that the failure to serve a copy of the application on the respondent did not affect the substantive validity of the prohibition order.

The Court made an order setting aside the decision of the magistrate and declaring that the prohibition order was valid and enforceable. The Court further made an order that the Commissioner was entitled to enforce the prohibition order against the respondent.