Healey v Williams - [1985] FCA 573

Re: BRIAN JOHN HEALEY
And: JONATHAN STEWART WILLIAMS, KENNETH BRUCE HENDERSON
No: G96 OF 1985
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - judicial review of magistrate's decision in committal proceedings - defendant discharged under para.41(6)(a) Justices Act (1902) - defendant then dies prior to making of an order under s.41A Justices Act that informant pay defendant's costs - whether power under s.41A exerciseable following death of defendant - principles governing exercise of discretion under s.41A considered.

HEARING

SYDNEY.
#DATE 15:11:1985

ORDER

The application be dismissed.

The applicant, Brian John Healey, pay to the respondent, Kenneth Bruce Henderson, his costs of the application.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to review a decision of the first respondent Jonathon Stewart Williams made on 4 April 1985 as presiding magistrate hearing committal proceedings between the applicant Brian John Healey a member of the Australian Federal Police who was the informant and the late Tina Wong, then a defendant in those proceedings. The decision was that the informant, Mr. Healey, pay the defendant, Miss Wong's, costs in the sum of $24,000 in default 12 months hard labour.

There were nine charges against the late Tina Wong concerning offences relating to importation, possession and supply of heroin. The hearing of evidence adduced by the Informant, Mr. Healey, commenced on 4 March 1984 and the hearing of this evidence and addresses ended on 20 March 1984, on which date Mr. Williams stated that he had formed the opinion under par.41(2)(b) of the Justices Act 1902 that the evidence was capable of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the late Tina Wong had committed the nine offences referred to. From 20 March to 22 March 1985 Mr. Williams heard evidence from the late Tina Wong and witnesses called on her behalf and addresses. On 22 March 1985 at a late hour of the day Mr. Williams stated that he was satisfied in respect of the opinion set out in para.416)(a) in respect of Miss Wong and further stated that he discharged her in respect of the informations presently under consideration by him. He indicated he would give his reasons for his decision on Wednesday 27 March 1985. Counsel for Miss Wong asked for some time to be made available on the Wednesday to deal with an application he would make at that time for costs.
On 23 March 1985 the defendant Tina Wong died. On 27 March 1985 Mr. Williams gave his reasons for his decision discharging her and he then heard the application for costs. Counsel who previously appeared for Miss Wong then appeared instructed by the administrator of her estate. Mr. Williams gave his decision on costs on 4 April 1985.
The application to review the decision on costs as originally lodged also sought review…

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 Healey v Williams 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: [1985] FCA 573
Decision Date: 15 NOVEMBER 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Healey v Williams, the applicant, Brian John Healey, sought judicial review of a magistrate's decision in committal proceedings. The respondent, Kenneth Bruce Henderson, was initially discharged under a specific provision of the Justices Act (1902), but subsequently passed away before the magistrate made an order for the informant to pay Henderson's costs. The central issue before the court was whether the power under section 41A of the Justices Act could be exercised following the death of the defendant. This raised questions about the principles governing the exercise of discretion under section 41A and the legal implications of a defendant's death on the proceedings.

The court considered the nature of the power under section 41A and whether it was intended to be exercised posthumously. It examined the purpose of the provision, which was to ensure that defendants were not unfairly burdened with costs when acquitted or discharged. The court also explored the practicalities of enforcing such an order after the defendant's death and the potential impact on the administration of justice. Ultimately, the court determined that the power under section 41A was not intended to be exercised following the death of the defendant, as it would be impractical and unjust to impose such a burden posthumously.

The court found that the discretion under section 41A was not exercisable in the circumstances presented. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and Healey was ordered to pay Henderson's costs of the application. The reasoning was grounded in the practicalities of enforcing an order posthumously and the intention of the legislation to protect defendants from unfair costs burdens. The final orders included the dismissal of the application and the imposition of costs on the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

The applicant, Brian John Healey, pay to the respondent, Kenneth Bruce Henderson, his costs of the application.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.

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.