Guisepie Spagnolo v The Minister for Immigraton & Ethnic Affairs

[1980] FCA 162

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

_ _

)

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	)	S.A.	No. G19 of 1980
1

DIVISION GENERAL 1

ON APPEAL FROK a DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATTVE

APPEALS TRIBCNAL -

BETWEEN :

GEIISEPPE SPAGNCLO Appellant

1 -

f and

THE MINISTER FOR IPCYCGRATIOh! AND

: Respondent AFFAIRS ETHNIC --

ORDER

I

-

JUDGES : Northrop, Deane, McGregor JJ.

DATE : 16 October 1980

WHERE MADE: Adelaide

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismlssed.

2. The decision of the k6mmlnlsl;rative Appeals Tribunal

of 19 August 1980 be affirmed.

3 . The applicant pay to the respondent the costs of the

:!

appeal.

.

I N THE	FEDERAL	COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
1

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) S.A. No. G19 of 1980

- )

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE

APPEALS TFIBUNAL

BETWEEN :

GUISEPPE	SPAGNOLO	A p p e l l a n t
and

THE MINISTER FOR IMYIGRATION

AND E T H N I C A F F A I R S R e s p o n d e n t

NORTHROP, DEANE,

McGREGOR JJ. EX TEYPOXE JUDGMENT 1 6 OCTOBER 1 9 8 0 . L

. - 2 -

.NORTHROP J: On 20 February 1979 officers of the d rug squad

e n t e r e d upon land near Murray Drldge, then being

. purchased by Gu l seppe S agno lo , he remaf t e r ca l l ed

t h e a p p l l c a n t , a n d b e i n g u s c d by him fo r marke t

garden purposes. They dlscovered 1500 Indlan hemp

p l a n t s g r o w i n g I n glass houses e rec t ed on t h a t l a n d .

They found a l so a . 2 2 c a l l b r e r l f l e and seve ra l

Ind ian hemp p l a n t s l y i n g on a bed l n s l d e a s t o r a g e

s h e d e r e c t e d on t h a t l a n d . Later t h a t d a y a n

officer o f t h e d r u g s q u a d a r r e s t e d t h e a p p l l c a n t

o u t s l d e a house a t Mile End a n d t h e r e a f t e r on

s e a r c h l n g t h e a p p l l c a n t ' s c a r f o u n d a n a u t o r n a t l c

pis tol wrapped I n a r u g lr! t h e b o o t of t h e c a r a n d

a t i n c o n t a l n l n g d r l e d I n d l a n hemp a n d c l g a r e t t c

pape r s on t h e d a s h b o a r d of t h e c a r . L a t e r t h e

o f f icer s e a r c h e d t h e a p p l l c a n t ' s h o u s e w h e r e h e

found a f u l l y a u t o m a t i c p l s t o l , a magazlne and a

box of bu l l e t s a l l wrapped In a rag and hldden

i n a lounge chair .

The a p p l i c e n t was charged wl th of fences under

s e c t i o n 5 of the N a r c o t l c and Psycho t rop lc Drugs

A c t 1 9 7 4 - 7 8 , S o u t h A u s t r a l l a , f l r s t l y t h a t b e t w e e n

t h e 1st day of June 1979 and the 20th day of

February 1979 a t Murray Brldge h e c u l t l v a t e d I n d l a n

hemp, t h e maximum pena l ty fo r wh lch was a f l n e of

$4000 or 10 years mpr l sonmen t or both and, secondly,

t h a t on the 20th day of February 1979 a t Murray

Bridge he knowing ly had In h l s posses s lon Ind lan hemp,

t h e maximum p e n a l t y f o r w h l c h was a fine of $2000 o r

two y e a r s w i th be ing i n possession lmprisonment o r both . H e was c h a r g e d a l s c

of an un l l censed p l s to l .

T h e a p p l i c a n t p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o each of t h e t h r e e

charges and w a s conv lc t ed . H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o

12 months lmprisonment on the charge of c u l t l v a t l n g

I n d i a n hemp and one months lrnprlsonment on the charge

of c u l t l v a t l n g I n d l a n hemp and one months lmprlsonrnent

on t h e c h a r g e of p o s s e s s l n g I n d l a n hemp, t h e s e n t e n c e s

t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y . He was f l n e d $45 on t h e

charge of b e i n g m p o s s e s s i o n o f a n u n l l c e n s e d p l s t o l .

The a p p l i c a n t 1s a n a l l e n u n d e r t h e M l g r a t l o n

A c t 1958. H e w a s born on 2 4 September 1 9 4 9 I n P l a t l

i n I t a l y where he l l v e d ,until h e n u g r a t e d t o A u s t r a l l a

i n May 1969. S i n c e t h e n h e h a s r e s l d s d I n A u s t r a l l a

cont inuous ly . H e 1 s s l n g l e and has no t appl lcd for,

nor b e e n g r a n t e d , A u s t r a l l a n c l t l z e n s h l p .

By o r d e r d a t e d 11 November 1979 t h e M l n l s t e r

of S t a t e for Immlgrat lon and Ethnlc A f f a l r s , I n

pursuance of the power confer red by s e c t i o n 1 2

Migrat lon A c t 1 9 5 8 , o r d e r e d t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t be

depor ted from Austral13. T h e a p p l l c a n t a p p l l e d t o

h a v e t h a t o r d e r , b e l n g a d c c l s l o n s u b j e c t t o revlew

unde r the Admln l s t r a t lve Appeals Tr lbunz l A c t 1975

(Schedulc par t XXII), revlewed by t h e A d m l n l s t r a t l v e

- 3 -

Appeals Trlbunal. Ry a declslon dated 1 9 August 1 9 8 0

the trlbunal affirmed the declslon of the Mlnlster of

State for Immlgratlon and Ethnlc Affalrs that the

appllcant be deported from Australla.

The appllcant appeals to thls court under sectlon

4 4 ( 1 ) o€ the Admlnlstratlve Appeals Trlbunal Act,	which
IS as follows:

A party to a proceedlng before the Trlbunal may appeal to the Federal

Court of Australla, on a questlon of

law, from any declslon of the Trlbunal

in that proceedlng.

Section 4 4 ( 3 ) vests jurisdlction In the Federal Court of Australla to hear and determlne the appeal. Slnce the trlbunal 1s constltuted by a presldentlal member,

the Jurlsdlctlon to hear and etermlne the appeal must

be exerclsed by a full court of the Federal Court.

Although the proceedlngs are referred to as an appeal,

the Federal Court 1s exerclslng orlglnal Jurlsdlctlon

under sectlon 19 Federal Court of Australla Act 1976.

See also sectlon 20 of that act. FGr thls reason under order 5 3 , rule 3 , of the rules of court the party who

commenced these proceedlngs	In the Federal Court	1s
an appllcant.

Under order 5 3 , rule 4 , of the rules of court

~ the notlce of appeal should state the questlon or

questlons of law to be ralsed on the appeal and the

orders sought. The notlce of appeal In the present

proceedlngs dld not state the questlon or questlons

of law ralsed on the appeal. It stated the orders

sought as belng:

1. That the afflrmatlon by the Learned Justice of the Mlnlster's order should be set aslde.

2.

That thls Trlbunal should recommend to be revoked.

At the hearing the applicant was granted leave to

amend the notlce of appeal by addlng questlons of law

whlch It was claimed were ralsed on the appeal. In

allowlng the alnencnent I am not to be taken as

acceptlng that the matters so formulated are auestlons

of law under sectlm 4 4 ( 1 ) Adnlnlstratlve :.ppeals

Trlbunal Act or the rules of court.	The questlons so
formulated are as follows:

1. Whether the learned Judc;e nlsdlrected

hlmself as to Lhc cnus of proof to be

applled In rnaklng f1ndlnq.s of fact.

I

- 4 -

2. Whether the fac t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t

l y l n g a n d ~ n l t l a l l y s t a t l n g a n

i n h e r e n t l y u n a c c e p t a b l e a c c o u n t of

how h e came t o be l n v o l v e d I n t h e

c u l t l v a t l o n of Ind lan Hemp was a

s i g n l f l c a n t f a c t o r I n c o n s l d c r l n g

(a) h a r d s h l p , (b) r e h a b l l l t a t l o n

and (c) r e c l d l v l s m .

3 .	Whether	t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e m l s d l r e c t e d
h lmsel f	i n c o n s l d e r l n g t h e f o l l o w l n g
aspects	o f t h e e v i d e n c e ; (a ) f i r e arms;

(b) method of the pu rchase o f p rope r ty

a t Murray Brldge; (c)whether or n o t

h e grew cucumbers on the sa ld p r o p e r t y ;

a n d ( d ) f a l l l n g t o work t h e s a l d

p rope r ty upon h l s r e l ease f rom p r l son ,

as b e i n g m a t t e r s r e l e v a n t for h i s

c o n s l d e r a t l o n .

4 . Whether t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e m l s d l r e c t e d

h imse l f In a l l t h e c ~ r c u m s t ~ n c c s i n

t a k i n g I n t o a c c o u c t t h e f a l l u r e o f

t h e a p p e l l a n t t o d l s c l o s e t h e l d e n t l t y

of h l s a c c o m p l l c e s .

5. Whether t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e e r r e d i n

f a l l l n g t o t a k e I n t o a c c o u n t I n a s s e s s l n g

h a r d s h l p t h a t t h e s p p e l l z n t was t h e f lrst

I t a l i a n m l g r a n t c o n v l c t e d i n S o u t h

A u s t r a l l a o f a d rug o f fence t o be s e r v e d

w l t h a d e p o r t a t l o n o r d e r .

6 .

W h e t h e r t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e e r r e d i n n o t was a lesser c u l t l v a t o r a n d was n o t

i nvo lved w l th an ‘o rgan lza t lon ‘ and was

n o t a n e n t r e p r e n e u r , o r g a n l z e r or a

marke ter .

l .	Whether t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e misdirected
hlmsel f - a t page 5 of the Judgment -
when h e s t a t e d , ‘ I am n o t s a t i s f l c d t h a t
i n a l l t h e circumstances It 1s I n t h e
best I n t e r e s t s o f A u s t r a l l a t h a t t h e
a p p l l c a n t b e p e r n u t t e d t o remain', and
w h e t h e r t h e c o r r e c t t e s t i s whether it 1s
I n t h e best I n t e r e s t s o f A u s t r a l l a t o

d e p o r t .

0 .	Whether the learned Judge rnlsdlrectcd
h lmse l f on the o~ lus o f p roof whcn he
s a l d . a t p a g e s 5 acd 6 of h l s r e a s o n s ,
‘whlch have 13 no \:ay been expla lned
t o my s a t l s f a c t l o n ’ .
9 .	There were n o g r o u n d s J u s t l f y l n g t h c
Tribunal's f lnc i izgs .

I--- -- ---I_ ____--._

- 5 -

The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e m a t t e r s a r g u e d o n b e h a l f of

t h e a p p l l c a n t were d l r e c t e d t o t h e p r o p o s l t l o n s t h a t

t h e r e were no reasonable grounds upon whlch the

t r i b u n a l c o u l d make t h e f l n d l n g s It d l d t o s u p p o r t Its

dec i s lon and t h a t t h e t r l b u n a l m u s t h a v e mlsdlrected

i t s e l f I n o r d e r t o h a v e come t o a conc lus lon advc r se

t o the app l l can t . Submlss lons were t h e n d l r e c t e d I n

suppor t o f t hose p ropos l t l ons and based upon a

d e t a l l e d r e f e r e n c e t o parts of t h e m a t e r l a l b e f o r e

t h e f r l b u n a l a n d t o par ts of t h e r e a s o n s f o r d e c l s l o n

published by t h e t r l b u n a l . I n t r u t h a l l t h o s e

submlsslons were d l r e c t e d t o t h e w e l g h t t h a t t h e

t r i b u n a l g a v e , or should have g lven , cr d l d n o t g l v e ,

t o t h a t m a t e r l a l . I am u n a b l e t o see on t h e f a c t s

of t h l s case how those submlss lons g lve rlse t o a

q u e s t i o n or q u e s t l o n s o f law u n d e r s e c t l o n 44(1)

Admin l s t r a t lve Appea l s T r lbuna l A c t . They a r e

d l r e c t e d t o the welght g lver l t o t h e m a t e r l a l b e f o r e

t h e t r l b u n a l .

I n any event , a s t u d y o f t h e material before

t h e t r l b u n a l a n d t h e r e a s o n s f o r Its d e c l s l o n discloses

t h a t t h e t r l b u n a l g a v e c a r e f u l a n d d c t a l l e d c o n s l d e r a t l o n

t o all r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s . I n my op ln lon I t d l d noc take

i n t o account mat ters whlch It shou ld no t have t aken ln to

account . It d l d n o t f a l l t o t a k e l n t o a c c o u n t m a t t e r s

which it shou ld have t aken In to accoun t . I t d l d n o t

act upon p l a i n l y wrong any wrong p r l n c l p l e n o r 1s t h c d e c l s l o n so

o r u n j u s t as t o l e a d t o a conclus lon

: t h a t t h e accord lng t o law. t r l b u n a l f a l l e d t o e x e r c l s c Its d l s c r e t l o n

I n my o p i n l o n t h e t r l b u n a l e x c r c l s e d

t h e d l s c r e t l o n c o n f e r r e d upon It a c c o r d l n g t o l a w .

It was f o r It t o d e c l d e , i n t h e exerclse o f t h a t

d i sc re t lon , wha t we lgh t It s h o u l d g l v e t o t h e v a r l o u s

matters b e f o r e It. It w a s f o r It t o declde, l n t h e

exerclse o f t h a t d l s c r e t l o n , w h a t o r d e r It should

make. It d i d t h l s .

I n my o p l n i o n t h e a p p l l c a n t f a l l s I n h l s a p p e a l

t o t h l s c o u r t . U n d e r s e c t l o n 4 4 ( 5 ) Adrnln ls t ra t lve

Appeals Tibunal A c t I would dlsrnlss the appea l and

a f f i r m t h e d e c l s l o n of t h e t r l b u n a l . I w l l l h e a r

argument a f t e r w e h a v e h e a r d t h e order o f t h e c o u r t

on t h e q u e s t l o n of costs.

DEANE J: The app l l can t , Gu l seppe Spagno lo , appea l s t o th l s

court from a d e c l s l o n of the Admlnls t ra t jve Appeals

T r i b u n a l , c o n s t l t u t e d b y F l s h e r J , a f f l r m l n g a

d e c l s l o n o f t h e M l n l s t e r for I rmrLlgrat lon and Lthnlc

A f f a l r s t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t be 2epor ted . The m l n l s t e r ' s

d e c l s l o n was made pur suan t to t h e p r o v l s l o n s o f s c c t l o n

1 2 o f t he Mlgra t lon Act, 1958. Whlle the proceedlngs

l i e i n Adminls t rnt lve Appeals t h e o r l g l n a l j u r l s d l c t l o n of t h l s c o u r t , It

is convcnlent t o f o l l o w the l anguage of t h e

T r lbuna l Act, 1975 ( the ac t )

and t o r e f e r t o them as "an appca l " .

- 6 -

The appeal t o t h l s c o u r t llcs p u r s u a n t t o t h e

p r o v l s l o n s o f s e c t l o n 4 4 o f t h e a c t . By t h e e x p r e s s

p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t sec t lon , t h e a p p e a l 1s l lml t ed to

an appeal "on a ques t lon o f l aw" . Th l s cou r t does

no t possess J u r l s d l c t l o n c p n e r a l l y t o r e v i e w t h e

f i n d l n g s	of	f a c t made	by	the Admln l s t r a t lve Appea l s
Tr lbunal .

S e c t i o n 12 of t h e Migration A c t , 1958 provides,

for p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , t h a t w h e r e a n a l l e n h a s b e e n

conv lc t ed In Australia o f any o f fence fo r wh lch he

h a s been sentenced t o lmpr lsonment for one year or

l o n g e r t h e m l n l s t e r may, upon t h e e x p l r a t l o n o f , or

durlng, any term of imprisonment s e r v e d or Se1ng

se rved by t h a t a l i e n i n respect o f t h e crme, o r d e r

t h e d e p o r t a t l o n o f t h a t a l l e n . T h e r e 1s n o d l s p u t e

b e t w e e n t h e p a r t l e s t h a t the a p p l i c a n t 1s a n a l l e n

fo r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s e c t l o n o r t h a t t h e c o n d l t l o n

p receden t t o the ex l s t ence o f t he power , name ly ,

c o n v i c t l o n w l t h t h e s p e c l f l e d c o n s e q u e n c e s , h a s b e e n

f u l f i l l e d . The maln I s s u e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e

t h e t r l b u n a l was t h e g e n e r a l I s s u e on t h e merits,

namely, whether In a l l t h e c l r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e case

t h e m l n l s t e r ' s o r d e r t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t b e d e p o r t e d

should be a f f l rmed or, a l t e r n a t l v e l y , w h e t h e r a

recommendatlon should be made t h a t It be revoked.

B e f o r e t h l s c o u r t , t h e I s s u e , b e l n g restrlcted t o

a ques t lon o f law, n e e d s t o b e d e f m e d w l t h much

.	g r e a t e r	p r e c l s i o n .
The no t l ce of a p p e a l f l l e d I n t h l s c o u r t d l d n o t

comply w i t h o r d e r 53, rule 4 , a n d s p e c l f l c a l l y

i d e n t l f y t h e q u e s t l o n or q u e s t l o n s o f l a w r a l s e d on

t h e a p p e a l . c o u n s e l f o r A t t h e c o n c l u s l o n of the a rgument of

t h e a p p l l c a n t , l e a v e was g l v e n t o t h e

a p p l i c a n t t o amend t h e n o t l c e of appea l so as K O

set o u t n l n e q u e s t l o n s o r g r o u n d s o f law whlch It

was clalmed o f t h e t r l b u n a l were Invo lved In t he appea l . These consisted

of a gene ra l ques t lon , g round 9 , w h e t h e r t h e d e c l s l o n

was open on t k e v l d e n c e b e f o r e It and

e i g h t p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t l o n s or grounds. These grounds

have been	set	o u t	I n	the Judgment of	M r J u s t l c e
Northrop.

T h e g e n e r a l a t t a c k made by t h e a p p l l c a n t upon

t h e t r l b u n a l ' s d e c l s l o n w a s , I n e f f e c t , t h a t t h e

t r l b u n a l ' s d e c l s l o n t o a f f l r m t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r

was one whlch was s lmply not open on the ev ldencc! before

It. What was subml t t ed was t h a t , o n t h e m a t e r l a l

b e f o r e t h e t r u e a n d r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s l o n w h l c h t h e t r i b u n a l , t h e r e w a s one, and only one,

t r l b u n a l

c o u l d h a v e r e a c h e d , n a m e l y , t h a t h e t r i b u n a l

should recommend to t h e m l n l s t e r t h a t t h e d e p o r t a t l o n

o r d e r be revoked.

- 7 -

I h a v e c a r e f u l l y c o n s l d e r e d t h e m a t e r l a l w h l c h

was b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l . I n my n e w , t h e c o n c l u s ~ o n

w h l c h t h e o r d e r s h o u l d b e a f f i r m e s , t r l b u n a l r e a c h e d , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e d c p o r t a t l o n

was c l e a r l y open t o 1t on

t h a t m a t e r l a l . T h a t c o n c l u s l o n b e l n g o p e n o n t h e

e v l d e n c e , t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r I t w a s or was n o t t h e

correct c o n c l u s i o n I n a l l t h e c l r c u n s t a n c e s was a

matter e n t r u s t e d t o t h e t r l b u n a l a n d n o t t o t h l s

court . The a p p l l c a n t ' s g e n e r a l a t t a c k on t h e

t r i b u n a l ' s d e c l s i o n f a l l s .

I n so f a r a s t h e v a r l o u s p a r t l c u l a r crltlclsms

whlch have been made of t h e t r i b u n a l ' s d e c l s l o n a r e

concerned, I am q u l t e u n c o n v m c e d t h a t a n y o f t h c m

has been made good . The t r l buna l d ld no t , I n my

view, adopt a mis taken approach on the ques t lon of

onus of F l s h e r p a l d r e g a r d proof. e n t i t l e d t o pay regard It has no t been shown t h a t Mr J u s t l c e

t o any fact t o whlch he was n o t

or t h a t h l s Honour f a l l e d t o

t a k e I n t o a c c o u n t a n y f a c t or cons lde ra t lon wh lch

he was bound t o t a k e I n t o a c c o u n t . Nor does It

appear t o m e t h a t , as a matter of law, h l s Honour

misd l rec tcd h l rnse l f In cons lder lng any of t h e

p a r t l c u l a r a s p e c t s o f t h e e v l d e n c e t o whlch

r e f e r e n c e is made I n t h e p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t l o n s or

grounds of law ralsed by t h e a p p l l c a n t , o r I n t h e

overall approach whlch he adopted In revlewlng the

m i n i s t e r ' s d e c i s i o n .

Much o f t h e a r g u m e n t b e f o r e t h l s c o u r t was t o

t h e e f f e c t t h a t h l s Honour placed undue errphasls on

va r ious ma t t e r s . I a m u n p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e v a r i o u s

submlss lons made on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l l c a n t on t h e

ques t ion o f t he emphas l s wh lch h l s Honour p l a c e d on

p a r t i c u l a r matters p r o p e r l y l n v o l v e a n y q u e s t l o n of

law I n r e s p e c t of whlch an appeal l les t o t h l s c c u r t .

I n my vlew none of thenatters t o w h l c h t h e t r l b u n a l

i s c la lmed to have g lven undue emphas ls were m a t t e r s

w h i c h t h e f rom t ak lng In to accoun t . t r l b u n a l w a s , as a m a t t e r of law, prec luded

The Importance which the

t r l b u n a l a t t a c h e d t o t h e s e v a r i o u s matters was

e s s e n t l a l l y a q u e s t i o n of f ac t f o r t h e t r l b u n a l .

I n d e c l s l o n o f t h e t r l b u n a l h a s f a l l e d t h e result t h e a p p l l c a n t ' s at tack on t h e

a t e v e r y p o i n t .

There is no bas i s upon whlch th l s cour t cou ld p ropc r ly

i n t e r f e r e w l t h t h a t d e c l s l o n . I agree w l t h t h e

o rder proposed by Nor throp J.

McGREGOR J: I a g r e e w l t h t h e summary of e v l d e n c e j u s t g l v e n

by t h e l e a r n e d p r e s l d l n g J u d g e , t o whlch I do not

seek to add , and t o what he and my b r o t h e r Deane

h a v e s a l d otherwise. I have noted t h a t no attack.

has been made i n t h e form of t h e d e p o r t a t l o n o r d e r

n o r on t h c e n t i t l w w n t of t h e m l n l s t e r , h a v l n g

r ega rd t o the conv lc t lon r cco rdcd and sen tence

imposed on t h e appe1:ar.t t o make such an order .

- 8 -

It may b e n o t e d t h a t as p a r t of h l s a p p e a l

t h e applicant s u b m l t t e d h l s own a f f l d a v l t and one

. of Domenlc Spagnolo. The probable or adlnsslble

value of s u c h e v l d e n c e a t a h e a r l n g d e c l d l n q f a c t u a l

i s s u e s 1s a t l e a s t o p e n t o q u e s t l o n , n o t o n l y because

of the competence of a person wlth the employment of

Domenlc Spagnolo t o g i v e a n a c c e p t a b l e e s t l m a t e of

t h e number of unemployed I n t h e r e g l o n o f P l a t l I n

I t a l y ; b u t i n s t a n c e s t o r e v e a l t h e s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t l o n t o a l s o b e c a u s e of t h e f a l l u r e I n some

which t h e a f f l d a v l t s a d d r e s s e d t h e m s e l v e s . However,

they do no more t h a n t o s e e k t o a d d s u p p o r t t o

p roposa t lons o f f ac t , and i f f o r n o o t h e r r e a s o n

t h l s c o u r t c o u l d n o t h a v e r e g a r d t o them.

The appea l as l n l t l a t e d d l s r e g a r d e d t h e

requirements of the Admlnls t ra t lve Appeal T ' r lbunal

A c t 1975 , s ec t lon 4 4 , and then logically enough t h e

grounds of appeal , 2 , 3, 4 , 9 and 10, are directed

t o matters of welght Counsel . in argument . r e f e r r l n g

t o p o r t l o n s of hls Honour 's Judgment, used t h e

expresslon "undue emphasls" whlch he agreed was

a n o t h e r method of expres s lon o f matters of weight .

Ground of appea l number 8, a s originally

c o n s t i t u t e d , w h l c h c o n s l s t s o f t w o p a r t s , was n o t

as t o t h e f l r s t par t t h e s u b j e c t o f s u b m l s s l o n o r

argument, and as t o t h e s e c o n d d l d n o t s p e c l f y s n y

ques t lon o f l a w . Ground 11 1s r e a l l y n o more than an

a s s e r t l o n t h a t t h e effect o f d e p o r t a t l o n was n o t

a p p r e c l a t e d by h l s Honour.

It f o l l o w e d t h a t a s p r e s e n t e d l n t h e g r o u n d s o f

a p p e a l t h e p r o v l s l o n s o f o r d e r 5 3 , r u l e 4 , were n o t

observed.

A s t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a ques t lon o f law

and one of f ac t , see f o r e x a m p l e S u l l l v a n v i ) l r e c t o r

of Transpor t , 20 ALR 323, a t pagcs 351 and 352:

J u d l c i a l Review of Admlnls t ra t lve Act lon ( thlrd

e d l t l o n ) de Smlth, page 111; W.A. Wllson "Questlons

of Degree" (1969) 32 MLR 361, a n d I n p a r t l c u l a r

Wlgmore on Ev ldence , t h l rd ed l t l on , pa rag raph 2551.

When t h e s e matters were p o l n t e d o u t on t h e

opening of t h s appea l counsel acknowledged the

d e f l c l e n c l e s b u t s a l d t h a t b e l n g aware of them

he w o u l d s u b n l t t h a t t h e r e were errors of law

o b s e r v a b l e i n t h e j u d g m e n t w h l c h e n t l t l e d t h e

a p p e l l a n t t o succeed.

H e d i f f e r e n t t o w h a t conceded however tha t t he p rope r o rde r ,

had been soughtwould thcn Sc, I n

e f f e c t , t o rernlt t h e m a t t e r f o r f u r t h e r or

d i f f e r e n t c o n s l d e r a t l o n . H e sought t o r e l y on t h e

speech of Lord Radcl l f fe I n Edwards v Elalrstow i 1 9 5 6 )

AC 1 4 a t paqe 30, as propoundlnq thc? t e s t t o be

employed by a c o u r t I n c o n s l d e r l n q whcCbcr there has

been a n e r r o r i n l a w 111 a c o u r t f r o 3 w h l c t , a a p p a l

1s brought . I need no t quo te t ha t pas saqc .

- 9 -

' 4 Counsel i l l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h cr i t ic ised wha t he dcsc r lbed a s an

by t h e learned deputy pres ident

. i n t h a t , as I unders tooa the a rgument , It was n o t

reasonable t o i n f e r f r o m u n t r u t h s to16 on o a t h

t h a t t h e c h a n c e of r e c l d l v l s m was h l g h e r or t h a t

r e h a b l l i t a t l o n of t h e a p p e l l a n t was less l i k e l y .

I n my view t h e a r g u m e n t d o e s n o t d o j u s t l c e

t o the judgment . I n a f a c t u a l a r e a w h e r e t h e

t e s t l m o n y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t c a n b e of g r e a t a s s l s t a n c e

a n d p r o b a t i v e v a l u e , t h e l e a r n e d d e p u t y p r e s l d e n t may

n o t be a b l e t o accept t h e v i v a v o c e e v l d e n c e o f f e r e d .

H e may form the view, as h e d l d t h e r e , a n d If I may

s a y so with good r e a s o n , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e

a p p e l l a n t . o r for t h a t m a t t e r o f o t h e r s , was n o t

rellable. If h e d o e s so t h e n o t h e r e v l d e n c e s t a n d s

u n q u a l l f l e d , or i f you w i l l , uncon t rad lc t ed . Th l s

is more it raise a c o r r e c t l y a matter o f c r e d l b l l l t y t h a n d o e s

q u e s t i o n of onus.

I do not accept t h a t t h e l e a r n e d d e p u t y

p r e s l d e n t f a l l e d t o a p p r e c l a t e t h e s l g n l f l c a n c e of d e p o r t a t i o n or Its e f f e c t on t h e a p p e l l a n t .

Whether It 1s t o b e c a t e g o r l s e d a s a las t resort

or a s a n a d n u n i s t r a t l v e a c t i o n may be a m a t t e r of

words i n a j u d g m e n t r e v e a l a n y h i n t t h a t t h e l e a r n e d j u d g e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t : n o r d o e s t h e

placed t o o much we lgh t on t h e q u e s t l o n o f d e t e r r e n c e

We have al lowed amendments by addl t lons to the

- grounds of appeal . Already I have commented on t h e

argument as t o onus a n d s o do no t refer t o It

f u r t h e r I n r e l a t l o n t o g r o u n d s 1 t o 8. Grounds 2 ,

5 and 6 seem t o me t o refer t o q u e s t l o n s of we l sh t

or emphas i s t h e j u d g m e n t t r a c e d and t hus o f f ac t . I do n o t a g r e e t h a t

a connect lon between an unacceptable

account and h a r d s h i p . A man's ev ldence as t o his own

ha rdsh ip may be less a c c e p t a b l e I f h e 1s n o t a

c red ib l e w l tnes s . The S U b J e C t s mentloned In ground 3

were p l a l n l y m a t t e r s f o r t h e c o n s l d e r a t l o n o f t h e

l e a r n e d d e p u t y p r e s l d e n t .

The f a i l u r e t o disclose a n l d e n t l t y referred t o

i n ground 4 was r e l e v a n t t o c r e d l b l l l t y , a n d , f o r

example, t o t h e " c h o l c e p r l n c l p l e " r e f e r r e d t o IC,

for example , and E thn lc Af fa l r s , Ins tandzr v M l n l s t e r f o r l m m l g r a t l o n

1979 , 2 Admln l s t r a t lon Law Notes

number 5 6 . The r e f u s a l t o a s s l s t l a w enforcement

o f f l c e r s engacjed I n c o m b a t l n g t h e s o c l a l e v l l of

l l l l c l t drug use can only hzrm the community, and

t h o s e who so r e f u s e are less a c c e p t a b l e a s rrc:ncers

of that communlty. I see n o l n d l c a t l m o f

m i s d l r e c t l o n I n t h l s m a t t e r . Grounii 7 does no t

p u r p o r t t o e x p r e s s a n I r o n c l a d p r o p o s l t l o n of law.

The d e c l s l o n In my vlew, looked a t I n t o t a l , was one

open t o t h e order proposed. t h e l e a r n e d d e p u t y p r e s l d e n t a n d 2oes r?ct I n

my n e w d l s c l o s e any e r r o r o f law. I concur wl th

- 10 -

The court makes the following orders-

1. The appeal be dismissed,

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals

Tribunal of 19 August 1980 be affirmed.

3. The applicant pay to the respondent the

costs of the appeal.