Priestley v Godwin - [2008] FCA 835

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835
MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v ANNWYN GODWIN PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER
ACD 1 OF 2008
MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
ACD 2 OF 2008
STONE J
12 MAY 2008
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

ACD 1 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

ANNWYN GODWIN, PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

ACD 2 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY
Applicant

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
First Respondent

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE:

12 MAY 2008

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In these two proceedings, both of which were commenced on 3 January 2008, the applicant, Mr Priestley, is seeking statements of reasons for, and the disclosure of evidence leading to, decisions of the respective respondents to make no further enquiry into certain allegations made by the applicant. These matters came before me for first directions on 6 February 2008. At that hearing the solicitor for the respondents sought extensions of time for the respondents to file and serve objections to competency in each proceeding although the time for filing any such objection had expired 14 days after Mr Priestley’s application was served on them; O 54 r 4.
I granted the extensions of time sought over the objections of the applicant and gave the respondents until 13 February to file their respective notices. Those orders were in accordance with the short minutes of order submitted by the respondent with some minor amendments made in Court. As I explained at the time, if there is an issue of the Court’s competence to entertain Mr Priestley’s applications it would have to be sorted out sooner or later. Whether or not those objections have any merit, it was clearly in the best interests of all parties to deal with them at the outset.
The respondents filed their objections to the competency of the applications on 13 February 2008 and they were listed for hearing on 31 March 2008. When the notices came on for hearing the applicant raised a constitutional issue and therefore Gyles J did not proceed with the hearing but ordered that s 78B notices be served on or before 28 April 2008.
By letter dated 18 April 2008 addressed to me in chambers the applicant requested that I recuse myself from hearing his applications. His letter contained a mixture of factual allegations and submissions and, in large part, was difficult to understand. On 12 May 2008, having heard Mr Priestley on his application for recusal, I dismissed the application and said I would provide reasons at a later date. These are my reasons.
Mr Priestley’s application appears to be based on two grounds. First,…

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 Priestley v Godwin

Details

AGLC: Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835
Case: [2008] FCA 835
Decision Date: 12 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Priestley v Godwin involved the applicant, Michael Priestley, seeking statements of reasons and the disclosure of evidence for decisions made by the respondents, Annwyn Godwin (Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner) and the Speaker and President of the Senate, to not further enquire into certain allegations made by the applicant. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. Priestley's application was contested by the respondents, who filed objections to the competency of the applications. The applicant subsequently sought the recusal of Justice Stone, the presiding judge.

The legal issues that arose in the case were primarily concerned with the competency of Priestley's applications and the validity of Justice Stone's decisions in granting extensions of time for the respondents to file objections and in other procedural matters. Priestley argued that the granting of extensions of time indicated bias on the part of the judge against him. He also contended that there was a conflict of interest as the Federal Court Rules, which were in question in the proceeding, were made by the judges of the Court.

Justice Stone dismissed Priestley's application for recusal, finding that the application had no merit. The judge addressed Priestley's concerns about the orders made in Court and those entered on the eCourt page, stating that the transcript of the proceedings was sufficient evidence of the orders made in Court. Furthermore, Justice Stone rejected the argument that there was a conflict of interest as the Federal Court Rules were made by the judges of the Court, as Priestley had not made an application to have the matter transferred to the High Court.

As a result, Justice Stone dismissed Priestley's application for recusal and the case proceeded with the original respondents.

Orders