Re: ADRIAN GEORGE PEARCE and KATHRYN MAREE PEARCE TRADING AS MISTER CARS GOLD COAST And: SENATOR THE HONOURABLE JOHN BUTTON, MINISTER OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND ORS No. QLD G133 OF 1984 Administrative Law - Customs and Exise - Evidence 8 FCR 388
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Pincus J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - customs Act - searches and seizures - validity of steps taken in Customs Act investigation - jurisdiction to make declaration as to rights of parties - scope of declaratory relief under Judicial Review Act - consent to searches and seizures - whether apparent consent negated.
Customs Act - s.214 procedure - validity of information under s.214 - whether Form 61 must state date of illegality - forfeiture - whether ownership passed immediately on forfeiture.
Evidence - search warrant - whether illegally obtained evidence - consent to search - whether consent to search negated by circumstances - whether discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence in civil matter.
Administrative Law - Seizure of imported motor vehicles - Validity of notice to produce documents - Whether documents obtained pursuant to invalid notice admissible in evidence - Consent to search and seizure of documents - Jurisdiction to make declaration that vehicles lawfully imported - Scope of declaratory relief under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) - Customs Act 1901 (Cth).
Customs and Excise - s 214 procedure - Validity of information under s 214 - Forfeiture - Whether ownership passes immediately on forfeiture - Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 214.
Evidence - Invalid search warrant - Whether evidence obtained during search admissible in evidence - Whether discretion to exclude illegally obtained evidence in civil matter - Consent to search - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 16 - Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss 203, 204, 214, 229, regs 171, 200, Form 61 - Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 25D.
HEADNOTE
Held: (1) The Federal Court, in reviewing a decision made under the Customs Act 1901 to seize goods, has jurisdiction, pursuant to s 161(1)(c) of the A Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to make a declaration on the question of whether the goods were lawfully imported or not, that being a question "in respect of any matter to which the decision" under review relates.
(2) When swearing an information for the purpose of s 214 of the Customs Act 1901, which requires relevantly information on oath that goods have been unlawfully imported, in order to require an owner of goods to produce all relevant documents, the informant must positively swear to the matter complained of and cannot do so merely on the basis of having reasonable cause to believe or suspect that matter.
(3) A notice to produce pursuant to s 214 of the Customs Act 1901 and in accordance…
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 Pearce v Button
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Adrian George Pearce and Kathryn Maree Pearce trading as Mister Cars Gold Coast v Senator the Honourable John Button, Minister of State for Industry & Commerce of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [1985] FCA 350 (8 FCR 388)
Case
[1985] FCA 350
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Pearce brought proceedings in the Federal Court against Button, a Customs Officer, seeking a declaration that the search of his property and seizure of his goods were unlawful and a declaration of his rights in relation to the seized goods. The basis for the claim was that the search and seizure were conducted without Pearce's consent, and therefore, contrary to the Customs Act. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the search and seizure under the Act and the scope of the declaratory relief available under the Judicial Review Act.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Pearce's apparent consent to the search negated his right to challenge the validity of the search and seizure, and whether the court had the jurisdiction to make a declaration regarding the rights of the parties involved. Additionally, the court had to consider the scope of the declaratory relief available under the Judicial Review Act in the context of the search and seizure of goods under the Customs Act.
The court held that Pearce's apparent consent to the search did not negate his right to challenge the validity of the search and seizure. However, the court found that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the Customs Act and were therefore lawful. The court also held that the Judicial Review Act did not provide the court with the jurisdiction to make a declaration as to the rights of the parties in relation to the seized goods. As such, the court dismissed Pearce's application for a declaration and any other relief.
The court dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the search and seizure were lawful and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to make the declarations sought by Pearce. The application was dismissed with costs.