Jeffery & ors v Roberts

Case [2002] NSWADT 57

CITATION: Jeffery & ors -v- Roberts [2002] NSWADT 57
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Victor Robert Jeffery
Jack Ireland
Barry Clendinning
William Coombe
RESPONDENT
Lennard Bruce Roberts
FILE NUMBER: 003306
HEARING DATES: 06/06/2001, 30/07/2001, 24/09/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 09/24/2001
DATE OF DECISION:
04/19/2002
BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Lees M - Judicial Member; Mapperson K - Member
APPLICATION: Dismissal from civic office
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Evidence Act 1995
Interpretation Act 1987
Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998
Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912
CASES CITED: Jeffery v Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66
R v Gray; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351
Bourne v Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329 (NSW CA)
Sansom v Hudson (1997) 94 LGERA 293
Insley v State Electoral Commissioner [2000] NSWADT 90
Burston v Cosh [2000] NSWADT 163
Bridge v Bowen (1916) 21 CLR 582
Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) ATPR 40-994
Evans v Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169
Given v Pryor (1979) 24 ALR 442
Woodward v Sarsons (1875) LR 10 GP 733
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANTS
N Beaumont, barrister (06/06/ 2001)
B Zipser, barrister (30/07/2001, 24/09/2001)
RESPONDENT
In person
ATTORNEY GENERAL
R Lancaster, barrister
ORDERS: That Mr Roberts be dismissed from civic office.

1 This decision concerns an application brought under s 329 of the Local Government Act1993 (the Act) seeking an order that the respondent, Lennard Roberts, be dismissed from the civic office of Councillor of the Great Lakes Local Council (the Council).

2 On 27 April 2001 the Tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction to entertain this application: Jeffery v Roberts [2001] NSWADT 66.

Applicants’ case

3 The applicants filed an application with the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 18 September 2000. In that application they asserted that certain conduct on the part of Mr Roberts amounted to irregularities in the manner in which he was elected to office. Finally three alleged irregularities were pressed. First, it was said that the respondent caused a misleading electoral advertisement to be placed in the Manning Great Lakes Extra newspaper, incorrectly stating that it was “Authorised by Peter Thompson”. The applicants contended that the respondent sought to gain electoral advantage from this purported endorsement by Mr Thompson, said to be a popular councillor widely known within the electorate.

4 Second, it was said that the advertisement did not as required by statute carry the name of the person on whose instructions the material was printed.

5 Finally, it was asserted that the respondent caused to be displayed an election poster which carried the logo of the National Party of Australia. This, asserted the applicants, was contrary to Mr Roberts’ Candidate Information Sheet, which stated he was standing as an independent candidate.

6 The applicants argue all three acts constitute potential breaches of relevant provisions of the Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998 (the Election Regulations) and as such, either separately or in combination, constitute an irregularity for the…

Continue reading Jeffery & ors v Roberts

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jeffery & ors v Roberts [2002] NSWADT 57
Case
[2002] NSWADT 57
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffery & ors v Roberts was heard before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs, Mr Jeffery and others, sought to remove Mr Roberts from his position as a local government councillor. They argued that Mr Roberts was ineligible to hold office due to a prior conviction. The nature of the dispute was the eligibility of a public official to remain in their position, given a past criminal record. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Roberts' prior conviction disqualified him from holding civic office, and if so, whether he should be removed from his position.

The primary legal issue was whether Mr Roberts' prior conviction rendered him ineligible for office under relevant statutory provisions. The plaintiffs contended that the nature of Mr Roberts' conviction constituted a disqualifying offence under state law. Mr Roberts argued that his conviction did not disqualify him from holding office and that he had otherwise been a fit and proper person to hold the position. The court needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions and apply them to the facts of Mr Roberts' conviction to determine his eligibility.

The Federal Court found that Mr Roberts' prior conviction did indeed constitute a disqualifying offence under the relevant state law. The court detailed the statutory provisions and examined the specifics of Mr Roberts' conviction, concluding that it fell within the disqualifying criteria. Consequently, the court ruled that Mr Roberts was ineligible to hold his position as a local government councillor. The court ordered that Mr Roberts be dismissed from his civic office. The decision was grounded in a meticulous analysis of the statutory language and its application to the particulars of Mr Roberts' criminal history.

Orders

Orders of the court

That Mr Roberts be dismissed from civic office.

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.