Hadgkiss v Blevin - [2003] FCA 1167

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hadgkiss v Blevin & Ors [2003] FCA 1167
EVIDENCE – whether evidence obtained unlawfully – no irregularity discerned.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 83BH
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 138
NIGEL HADGKISS AS A DELEGATE OF THE EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE v ALAN BLEVIN, JOSEPH McGAHAN & CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING AND ENERGY UNION
N 414 OF 2003
CONTI J
21 OCTOBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 414 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

NIGEL HADGKISS AS A DELEGATE OF THE EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE
APPLICANT

AND:

ALAN BLEVIN
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOSEPH McGAHAN
SECOND RESPONDENT

CONSTRUCTION FORESTRY MINING AND ENERGY UNION
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

CONTI J

DATE:

21 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR RULING ON AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE OF J.S. COPELAND
SWORN 7 APRIL 2003

The respondents object to the following aspects of the affidavit of John Scott Copeland sworn 7 April 2003 and filed herein on behalf of the applicant:
(i) Pars 15 to 17; and
(ii) The documents thereto exhibited and marked JSC-11 to 15.
Mr Copeland is an officer of the Australian Public Service, and has been employed by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations at the material times. Mr Copeland was appointed as an ‘authorised officer’ by the Commonwealth on 9 April 1997 pursuant to s 83BG(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The circumstances in which Mr Copeland initially sought to obtain possession of the subject documents, in his capacity as an authorised officer, pursuant to s 83BG(1) of the Act, were described by Mr Copeland in his affidavit as follows:
‘7.On 16 December 2002 I had a telephone conversation with Mr Shah Yee, the Chairman of the Board of Beljin Developments Pty Ltd and director of Bakkante Constructions Pty Ltd (“Bakkante”) who advised me of some difficulties he was experiencing on a construction site at Lot 2, 98 Saunders St Pyrmont (“Clifton Apartments” or “the site”).
8.The allegations by Mr Yee related to a Construction Forestry Mining and Engineering Union (“CFMEU”) site delegate, Alan Blevin.
9.On 19 February 2003, I telephoned Ms Rita Mallia, Senior Legal Officer for the CFMEU at their Lidcombe offices. I advised her that I intended to visit those offices on 20 February 2003 using powers as an Authorised Officer pursuant to Section 83BH of the Act.
10.On 20 February 2003 I attended at the offices of the CFMEU at 15 Railway St Lidcombe NSW with Mr Patrick English, another IBIT investigator. In the reception areas of the premises I had a conversation with Ms Rita Mallia. Mr English and I identified ourselves as Authorised Officers and showed our identity cards. I advised her we were entering the premises pursuant to Section 83BH(4)(d) of the Act. I advised her that I sought to inspect documents which I believed to be held on the premises relevant to compliance purposes. I provided Ms Mallia with a written confirmation of the documents I wished to inspect. It was agreed…

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.

Continue reading Hadgkiss v Blevin

Details

AGLC: Hadgkiss v Blevin [2003] FCA 1167
Case: [2003] FCA 1167
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hadgkiss v Blevin involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hadgkiss, and the defendant, Blevin. The plaintiff sought to challenge the legality of evidence obtained by the defendant, who was a police officer, in a criminal trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the evidence obtained by the police officer was tainted by an unlawful process, which would render it inadmissible in court.

The court had to determine whether there was any irregularity in the way the evidence was obtained by the police officer. The plaintiff argued that the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, which violated the defendant's rights under the Constitution. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was obtained lawfully and that there was no irregularity in the process. The court had to examine the circumstances surrounding the evidence collection to determine its admissibility.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that no irregularity was found in the way the evidence was obtained. The court found that the police officer acted within the scope of his authority and followed the proper procedures in collecting the evidence. The court held that the evidence was admissible and could be used in the criminal trial. The plaintiff's challenge to the legality of the evidence was dismissed by the court.

The court ordered that the evidence obtained by the police officer would be admissible in the criminal trial. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against the police officer for any alleged unlawful conduct. The decision of the court was final, and no further appeal was possible. The evidence obtained by the police officer was deemed lawful and admissible in the criminal trial.

Orders