Price v Fitzgerald

Case [2000] FCA 134

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Price v Fitzgerald [2000] FCA 134

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Conferral of administrative powers on a magistrate – whether contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution - whether s 3E(1) of the Crimes Act (Cth) 1914 confers powers on a State court or on a magistrate as a designated person.

Constitution, s 77(iii)
Crimes Act (Cth) 1914, ss 3C(1), 3CA(1), 3E(1), 3F, 3G, 3ZI, 3ZJ, 3ZK, 3ZN, 3ZW
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), ss 15, 15A, 16C

Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133, cited
Queen Victoria Memorial Hospital v Thornton (1953) 87 CLR 144, distinguished
Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57, followed
The Queen v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR 596, cited
Love v Attorney General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307, cited
Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348, cited

Ousley v R (1997) 192 CLR 69, cited
Aston v Irvine (1955) 92 CLR 353, cited

PRICE V FITZGERALD & ANOR
N 1179 OF 1999

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ
SYDNEY

18 FEBRUARY 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1179 OF 1999

On appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
APPELLANT

AND:

JULIAN FITZGERALD
FIRST RESPONDENT

KEITH JOHN RANDALL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ

DATE:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1179 OF 1999

On appeal from a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

JOHN JAMES PRICE
APPELLANT

AND:

JULIAN FITZGERALD
FIRST RESPONDENT

KEITH JOHN RANDALL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BLACK CJ, SACKVILLE & EMMETT JJ

DATE:

18 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT
The Constitutional Contention

  1. This appeal raises a constitutional issue. The appellant challenges the validity of a search warrant issued by the first respondent, a Stipendiary Magistrate holding office in Victoria, on the ground that s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“Crimes Act”), pursuant to which the warrant was issued, is invalid. The ground identified in the notice of appeal is that the learned primary Judge erred in law in failing to hold that s 3E of the  Crimes Act is beyond the power of the Commonwealth Parliament because it involves the conferral of an administrative function on a judicial officer contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution.

  2. Notice was given to the Attorneys General of the Commonwealth and States as required by s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). None sought to intervene in the proceedings. The first respondent entered a submitting appearance.

  3. The appellant’s submissions did not explain why the constitutional issue was raised only in this appeal and not in the two appeals argued at the same time, in which he challenged the…

Continue reading Price v Fitzgerald

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Price v Fitzgerald [2000] FCA 134
Case
[2000] FCA 134
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court in Price v Fitzgerald involved a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3E(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The appellant argued that this provision, which confers powers on magistrates, infringed upon Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which outlines the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The court was required to determine the validity of the section in light of the appellant's constitutional challenge.

The central legal issue before the court was whether section 3E(1) of the Crimes Act infringed upon the separation of judicial power as prescribed in Chapter III of the Constitution. The court had to consider whether this section, when read in conjunction with section 3CA of the same Act, altered the operation of section 3E(1) in a way that would render it unconstitutional. Additionally, the court needed to clarify the intended scope and operation of section 3CA and its relationship with section 3E(1).

The court determined that section 3CA was designed to ensure that specific powers conferred by Division 4 of Part 1AA of the Crimes Act were beyond constitutional challenge. However, this section was not intended to alter the operation of section 3E(1). Section 3E(1) confers powers on magistrates as designated persons, which does not infringe upon Chapter III of the Constitution. The court found that the appellant's challenge to the validity of section 3E(1) was unfounded, as the provision did not violate the constitutional separation of judicial power.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court's decision affirmed the constitutionality of section 3E(1) of the Crimes Act, upholding the powers conferred to magistrates under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

In our view, s 3CA is to be seen as a provision designed to put beyond constitutional challenge specific powers conferred by Div 4 of Part 1AA of the Crimes Act. It was not intended to alter the operation of s 3E(1) of the Crimes Act. That sub-section, as a matter of construction, confers powers on magistrates as designated persons. It therefore does not infringe Chapter III of the Constitution.Conclusion For these reasons, the appellant’s challenge to the validity of s 3E of the Crimes Act fails. The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphsare a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.Associate:Dated: 18 February 2000

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.