Peck v Commissioner of Corrective Services (No 2)

In this matter, the Applicant, Peck, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Respondent, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, regarding their management of her son's parole. The High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding the case.

The legal issues central to the case involved the interpretation of the Australian Constitution, specifically section 75(v), which pertains to the review of administrative decisions. The court had to determine whether the decision in question was a decision of an administrative character, and whether it was made by an "officer of the Commonwealth." Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the decision was subject to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The court found that the decision to manage the son's parole was indeed a decision of an administrative character and was made by an officer of the Commonwealth. The decision was therefore subject to judicial review. The court further held that the decision was flawed due to procedural unfairness, as the Applicant had not been given an opportunity to make submissions or be heard before the decision was made. This breach of natural justice rendered the decision invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the decision and ordered the Commissioner to pay costs to the Applicant. The parties were to agree on the amount of costs within 28 days, with the option for assessment by the court if no agreement was reached.