Price v Elder

Case [2000] FCA 133

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – search warrants issued by officer of the Local Court of New South Wales - review of decision to issue warrants under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) – whether failure to take into account relevant considerations - whether issuing officer under duty to make inquiries - whether applicant for warrant under duty to disclose information that a “reasonable applicant” would disclose

CRIMINAL LAW - application for relief pursuant to s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - whether failure to comply with s 3E(4) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – purpose of s 3E - whether prior application for a warrant – whether application for warrant in absence of request to issue warrant

WORDS & PHRASES – “in the information” - “applied for a warrant” – “information on oath”

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3E, 3R, 29D
Crimes (Search Warrants & Powers of Arrest) Amendment Act 1994 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B
Sales Tax Assessment Act 1992 (Cth)

Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paraggio (1994) 52 FCR 542 followed
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 followed
Puglisi v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (1997) 148 ALR 393 referred to
Saunders v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (1998) 52 ALD 484 followed

JOHN JAMES PRICE v WENDY ELDER, DOUGLAS SEYMOUR, ISABEL JIRASEK, CHRISTIAN PHELAN, MARK KNOTH, DANNY STRAFORD, ADRIAN WEBSTER, CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER, ALLAN WILLIAMS, MICHAEL BANACH & KELVIN CAM
N 1178 OF 1999 & N 1180 OF 1999

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ
18 FEBRUARY 2000
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N 1178 OF 1999

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
Appellant

AND:

WENDY ELDER

First Respondent

DOUGLAS SEYMOUR

Second Respondent

ISABEL JIRASEK

Third Respondent

CHRISTIAN PHELAN

Fourth Respondent

MARK KNOTH

Fifth Respondent

DANNY STRAFORD

Sixth Respondent

ADRIAN WEBSTER

Seventh Respondent

CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER

Eighth Respondent

ALLAN WILLIAMS

Ninth Respondent

MICHAEL BANACH

Tenth Respondent

KELVIN CAM
Eleventh Respondent

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal be dismissed;

2.        The appellant pay the respondents’ costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

N 1180 OF 1999

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
Appellant

AND:

WENDY ELDER

First Respondent

DOUGLAS SEYMOUR

Second Respondent

ISABEL JIRASEK

Third Respondent

CHRISTIAN PHELAN

Fourth Respondent

MARK KNOTH

Fifth Respondent

DANNY STRAFORD

Sixth Respondent

ADRIAN WEBSTER

Seventh Respondent

CHRISTOPHER BUTTNER

Eighth Respondent

ALLAN WILLIAMS

Ninth Respondent

MICHAEL BANACH

Tenth Respondent

KELVIN CAM
Eleventh Respondent

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.…

Continue reading Price v Elder

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133
Case
[2000] FCA 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Price v Elder involved an appeal against the issuance of arrest warrants. The primary parties involved were the applicant, who sought the warrants, and the issuing officers who were tasked with determining the adequacy of the application. The dispute centred around the issuing officers' conduct and whether they had acted appropriately in issuing the warrants and in communicating with the applicant. This case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court needed to address revolved around the conduct of the issuing officers. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the officers had breached any procedural fairness by communicating with the applicant regarding the deficiencies in the application. The applicant argued that such communication was inappropriate and that it amounted to an unfair process. The court was tasked with examining the principles of natural justice and fairness in the context of the issuance of arrest warrants.

The court considered the distinction between providing general guidance on the information needed for a satisfactory application and providing specific feedback on the deficiencies of a particular application. The court concluded that while general guidance was acceptable, providing specific feedback in a particular case was undesirable. This was because such feedback could be seen as an attempt to influence the application before the officer, thereby compromising the officer's impartiality. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that issuing officers remain unbiased and objective. The court found that the issuing officers had not breached any principles of natural justice, and thus the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed;

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

Efficient administration may well be served by issuing officers indicating, in general terms, the nature of information that would be regarded as satisfactory for the purposes of issuing a warrant. But that is different from an issuing officer being asked to indicate, in a particular case, the specific deficiencies in an application intended to be put before the officer. In our view, the latter practice is undesirable.CONCLUSION It follows that each appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.