Honda Australia Motorcycle v Johnstone - [2005] VSC 387

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5297 of 2005

HONDA AUSTRALIA MOTORCYCLE & POWER EQUIPMENT PTY LTD & ORS	Plaintiffs
v
GRAEME JOHNSTONE (AS STATE CORONER) & THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 and 30 August, 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Honda Australia Motorcycle & Power Equipment Pty Ltd & Ors v Johnstone (as State Coroner)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 387

---

Judicial review – inquest – apprehended bias – coroner approaching witness to participate in a seminar for coroners.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr R. Ray QC & Mr J. Noonan SC	Deacons
For the Second Defendant	Mr J. Ruskin QC & Ms C. Anagnostou	Victoria Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

The application

By originating motion dated 31 March 2005, the plaintiffs seek the following relief:

(a)an Order, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the decision of the first defendant made 16 March 2005 dismissing the plaintiffs’ application that he disqualify himself on the grounds of apprehended or ostensible bias;

(b) an Order, in the nature of prohibition –
(i)preventing the first defendant from continuing with the further hearing of inquests into the deaths of Thomas Scutchings, Patricia Smith, Elija Simson, Peter Crole, John Nash and Vincent Tobin (“the deaths”);
(ii)preventing the first defendant from handing down any findings, or making any comment or recommendation in respect of the deaths;

(c)an Order, in the nature of mandamus, requiring the first defendant to refer the hearing of coronial inquiries into the deaths to the Deputy State Coroner for directions in relation to the further hearing of those inquests.

The inquests

On 12 December 2002 the first defendant commenced the hearing of inquests into the deaths of Thomas Scutchings, Patricia Smith, Elija Simson, Peter Crole, John Nash and Vincent Tobin. During the currency of those inquests, the first defendant was also conducting inquests into the deaths of Dr Shepherd and a Mr Jones in Tasmania, he also having been appointed a coroner for the State of Tasmania. An application similar to the present application has been brought in the Supreme Court of Tasmania with respect to those inquests.

The plaintiffs to these proceedings were granted leave to appear at the Victorian inquests. They are distributors of what are called All Terrain Vehicles (ATV). Each of the deaths subject to the coronial inquest occurred in 2002 and in each instance the deceased had been operating or riding upon an ATV at or about the time of death.

Circumstances giving rise to the allegation of ostensible bias

The major disputed issues in the inquest relevant to the present application were the following:

●whether the lack of roll-over structures on their ATVs caused the death of Mr Crole and Dr Shephard
●whether roll-over structures should be installed on ATVs
●whether the question of the provision of roll-over structures for ATVs…

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 Honda Australia Motorcycle v Johnstone 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: [2005] VSC 387
Decision Date: 29 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Honda Australia Motorcycle v Johnstone involves a judicial review initiated by Honda Australia Motorcycle, challenging the decision of a coroner to approach a witness to participate in a seminar for coroners. The nature of the dispute centres on the potential for bias in the inquest process and whether the coroner's actions compromised the fairness of the proceedings. The court hearing this matter was the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the coroner's approach to the witness constituted apprehended bias and whether such an action was procedurally unfair, thereby tainting the inquest's integrity. The court was required to consider whether the coroner's actions fell outside the bounds of procedural fairness and if there was a real likelihood of bias that could undermine public confidence in the judicial process.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the principles of judicial impartiality and procedural fairness. It found that the coroner's approach to the witness did not, in itself, constitute bias. The court reasoned that the invitation was not coercive and did not suggest any improper influence or predetermination of the inquest's outcome. Furthermore, the court held that the witness's voluntary participation in the seminar did not affect the coroner's ability to remain impartial. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, ruling that there was no apprehended bias or procedural unfairness in the coroner's actions.

The final orders of the court were that the application for judicial review be dismissed, and Honda Australia Motorcycle bear the costs of the proceedings. This outcome reaffirms the importance of maintaining procedural fairness and impartiality in inquest proceedings while also recognising the limits of what constitutes apprehended bias.

Orders