Graham v Deputy Chief of Air Force

The case of Graham v Deputy Chief of Air Force involved an Air Force member contesting a decision to dismiss him for possession of bongs and a positive urinalysis for cannabis. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors and whether there was any failure to afford the applicant natural justice by allowing him to address certain findings. Specifically, the court examined whether the respondents took into account the possibility of faulty recollection by the witnesses rather than deliberate dishonesty, and whether the applicant was given an opportunity to confront the finding that the bongs had only one purpose, which was central to the relevance of the bongs in the case.

The court reasoned that the reading of the bongs in itself was a relevant factor but not the sole consideration. Regarding the alleged admission, the court found it rational to conclude that the witnesses were either truthful or lying, with faulty recollection being unlikely. The court also noted that there was no apparent motive for the witnesses to lie, making the issue a factual matter for the decision-maker. Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant had ample opportunity to address the findings against him but failed to suggest any alternative reasons for the use of the bongs. The court concluded that the applicant's assertions excluded the possibility of the bongs being used for any other innocent purpose. Lastly, concerning the investigating officer's report, the court found that while it was not provided to the applicant, he had numerous opportunities to present relevant matters. The court held that the failure to consider faulty recollection or the exact concentration of cannabis in the urinalysis did not undermine the decision.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.