DEJAN MAKSIMOVIC and AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE - [2009] AATA 28

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 28
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/1658

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re DEJAN MAKSIMOVIC

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member
Date16 January 2009
PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review with respect to the documents remaining in issue at the commencement of the hearing is affirmed.

(Sgd) John Handley
Senior Member

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ‑ application for release of documents, if not exempt, would (i) disclose lawful methods of procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with matters arising out of breaches or evasions of the law – (ii) prejudice the effectiveness of those methods – (iii) unreasonably disclose personal information about persons – decision affirmed
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 35
CommonwealthElectoral Act 1918 (Cth)s 4 and s 90B
Electoral and Referendum Regulations 1940 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) s 3, s 11, s 37(2)(b, s 41(1), s 47A, s 47A(2)(g), s 63 and s 64
Attorney‑General's Department and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Cockcroft (1986) 10 FCR 180
Colakovski v Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 100 ALR 111
Crown Bedding Co Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1946) 1 All ER 452
Re Dwyer and Department of Finance and Ors (1986) 8 ALD 474
Jarrad v Silver Top Taxi Service (1980) 29 ALR 533
News Corporation Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission (1984) 5 FCR 88
Re Anderson and Australian Federal Police (1986) 11 ALD 355
Re Campillo and Australian Customs Service [2005] AATA 1196
Re Wallace and Australian Federal Police [2004] AATA 845
Taikato v R (1996) 139 ALR 390 and 391
REASONS FOR DECISION

16 January 2009 Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      On 21 February 2008 the applicant applied under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for All documents pertaining to a parcel that was detected by Australian Custom's Officers on 01 March 2005 at the Melbourne Mail Transit Centre during overseas mail screening process. The parcel had a registered mail sticker number RR 113428229CR. The request also recorded the name of the person and the address to whom the parcel was addressed in Australia and the name of the person and the address of the person in Costa Rica who forwarded the parcel to Australia. (All references to sections of legislation in these reasons will be of the Freedom of Information Act unless otherwise indicated).
2.      An officer of the respondent decided to release some documents in whole and in part. An exemption was claimed with respect to those parts of the documents not released. That decision was affirmed upon internal review on 14 April 2008 and it is that decision for which review is sought by the applicant in this Tribunal.
3.      Subsequent to the commencement of these proceedings and the day of hearing, the respondent decided to release further information and documents to the applicant. The hearing was concerned only with two documents described as an Information…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read DEJAN MAKSIMOVIC and AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] AATA 28
Decision Date: 16 January 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dejan Maksimovic brought proceedings against the Australian Customs Service concerning the legality of a search of his person and vehicle. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the validity of the search and whether it complied with the statutory provisions under the Customs Act 1901. The central legal issue revolved around whether the officers' conduct in conducting the search was lawful and if it adhered to the specific statutory requirements for searches under the Act. The Court examined the evidence presented regarding the officers' actions, the circumstances under which the search was conducted, and the compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of the statutory framework governing customs searches. It assessed whether the officers had reasonable grounds to suspect that Maksimovic was carrying dutiable goods and whether the search was conducted in a manner that was reasonable and lawful under the circumstances. The Court found that the officers' actions were justified and that the search complied with the statutory provisions. The decision hinged on the Court's interpretation of the relevant statutory language and the context in which the search was conducted.

The Court concluded that the search was lawful and affirmed the decision under review regarding the documents in question. The Court found that the officers' actions were consistent with the statutory requirements, and as such, the search was valid. Consequently, the Court dismissed the proceedings brought by Maksimovic against the Australian Customs Service. The affirmation of the decision under review meant that the search and the subsequent seizure of the documents were upheld as lawful.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review with respect to the documents remaining in issue at the commencement of the hearing is affirmed.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		DEJAN MAKSIMOVIC