Pavich v Bobra Nominees Pty Ltd - [1988] FCA 378

Re: FRANKLYN ERNEST YATES
And: BERTRAM WILSON; NICHOLAS ERNEST BURY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(CTH)
No. G758 of 1987
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Foster J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Review of Magistrate's decision to commit Applicant for trial on charges under s. 29A(2) of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) and s. 178 BA of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.) - Jurisdiction - Discretion - Whether charges as laid disclose any offence - Whether Magistrate had before him sufficient material from which to draw the necessary inferences - Magistrate's decision upheld.

Lamb v. Moss, 49 ALR 533

R v. Laverty, (1970) 3 All ER 432

Victoria v. The Commonwealth, 122 CLR 353

Ss 5, 6 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977

Ss 5, 9 Sales Tax Act, Number 5

Ss 8A, 8B(i), 8J(3) Tax Administration Act, 1953

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 23:6:1988

JUDGE1

The applicant in these proceedings was committed for tria first respondent, a Magistrate of the Local Court on 10 December, 1987 on 65 charges under s. 29A(2) of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) and one charge under s. 178BA of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.).

The second respondent is the police officer involved in the bringing of the charges and the third respondent is the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
The proceedings before me are brought pursuant to sections 5 and 16 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 . Orders are sought for the quashing of the decisions of the first respondent committing the applicant for trial on the charges to which I have made reference.
Preliminary submissions are made on behalf of the respondents, firstly, that there is an absence of jurisdiction in this Court to deal with the matter at all and, secondly, that if jurisdiction does exist the Court should decline to exercise it as a matter of discretion on the basis that to exercise it would be to interfere with the due processes of the criminal law in respect to these charges.
In the circumstances, I do not propose to give reasons in relation to these particular submissions. I am satisfied that the decision of the Full Court of this Court in Lamb v. Moss, 49 ALR 533, provides the necessary jurisdictional basis for my proceeding with the matter. Also, I have formed a view during the course of the hearing that I should decide the matter and not decline to exercise that jurisdiction on discretionary grounds.
The charges pursuant to s. 29A(2) of the Crimes Act, 1914 were all in similar form. I can have regard, for the purpose of considering this matter, to a particular charge set out in a summary of charges which has been provided to the Court pursuant to directions previously given. That charge reads as follows:-

"That Franklin Ernest Yates did through an agent Wandabar Customs Agency Pty. Limited on or about

(date) at Sydney in the State of New South Wales with intent…

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 Pavich v Bobra Nominees Pty Ltd 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: [1988] FCA 378
Decision Date: 23 JUNE 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pavich v Bobra Nominees Pty Ltd involves an application by the applicant, Pavich, to review a Magistrate's decision to commit him for trial on charges laid under specific sections of federal and state criminal legislation. The case was heard by the relevant court which was tasked with determining the validity of the Magistrate's decision. The applicant sought to challenge the Magistrate's determination on the grounds that the charges as laid did not disclose any offence and that the Magistrate did not have sufficient material to draw necessary inferences.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the charges as laid by the Magistrate disclosed any offence and whether the Magistrate had before him sufficient material from which to draw the necessary inferences to support the decision to commit the applicant for trial. These issues required the court to delve into the specifics of the statutory provisions, the evidence presented to the Magistrate, and the principles governing judicial discretion in such matters.

The court thoroughly examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented to the Magistrate. It found that the charges as laid did indeed disclose an offence under the relevant sections of the Crimes Act. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrate had sufficient material before him to make the decision to commit the applicant for trial. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion and the deference owed to the findings of a Magistrate, concluding that the Magistrate's decision should stand. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the application to review the Magistrate's decision was dismissed, upholding the original decision to commit the applicant for trial on the charges as laid. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of respecting the discretion of the primary decision-maker and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

Orders