Re: PETER LAMB And: THOMAS ERVIN MOSS And: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN (1983) 76 FLR 296 N.S.W. G63 of 1983 Administrative Law - Crown - High Court and Federal Judiciary
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Bowen C.J.(1), Sheppard(1) and Fitzgerald(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act - applicant seeking to have reviewed "decisions or conduct" of a stipendiary magistrate in committal proceedings - whether the magistrate made a "decision" or "engaged in conduct" for the purpose of a "decision" - whether decisions of an "administrative character" - whether decisions or conduct "under an enactment" - the Court's discretion under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.
Administrative Law - Judicial review - Whether court bound to hear application - Whether bound to grant relief - Discretion to refuse relief - Magistrate making decisions during committal proceedings for federal offence - Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.), s. 41 - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 68(2) - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
Crown - Decision - Class of decisions to be reviewed - Whether conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision - Magistrate making decisions during committal proceedings for federal offence - Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.), s. 41(4) - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 68(2) - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
High Court and Federal Judiciary - Federal Court of Australia - Supervisory jurisdiction - Review of administrative decisions - Magistrate hearing committal proceedings for federal offence - Order of review in exceptional cases - Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.), s. 41 - Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s. 68(2) - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).
HEADNOTE
A magistrate during committal proceedings for a federal offence determined that there was a prima facie case for another offence and proposed that the proceedings continue under s. 41(4) of the Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.). The first respondent sought unsuccessfully to have witnesses recalled for cross-examination and sought a stay of proceedings. On an appeal from a finding of jurisdiction to review those decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth),
Held, dismissing the appeal: (1) Once the jurisdiction of the court is properly enlivened by a sufficent application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) there is an obligation on the court to entertain that application. However the existence of that obligation is not inconsistent with the discretionary power which exists under the Act to refuse relief.
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 Lamb, Peter v Moss, Thomas Ervin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lamb, Peter v Moss, Thomas Ervin & Ors [1983] FCA 264 ((1983) 76 FLR 296)
Case
[1983] FCA 264
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Lamb, Peter v Moss, Thomas Ervin involved a challenge by Peter Lamb against the decisions and conduct of Thomas Ervin Moss, a stipendiary magistrate, during committal proceedings. The application sought judicial review of certain decisions made by the magistrate under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The central issue was whether the magistrate's actions constituted a "decision" or "conduct" for the purposes of the Act, and whether these decisions were of an administrative character and made under an enactment. Additionally, the court had to consider its discretion in reviewing the magistrate's actions.
The court determined that the magistrate's decisions during the committal proceedings were not subject to judicial review under the Act, as they did not meet the criteria for a "decision" or "conduct" for the purpose of a "decision." The court held that the magistrate's decisions were not of an administrative character, nor were they made under an enactment. The court exercised its discretion under the Act to decline jurisdiction over the matter, finding that the magistrate's decisions were not amenable to judicial review.
Given that the court found no jurisdiction to review the magistrate's decisions, it dismissed the appeal. The court also ordered that Peter Lamb pay the costs of the proceedings. This outcome underscores the limited scope of judicial review over certain judicial functions and the importance of the statutory criteria in determining the court's jurisdiction in administrative law matters.