Legal Research
Cases
Re Michelle Roberts, Honourable Minister for Police and Emergency Services;

Re Michelle Roberts, Honourable Minister for Police and Emergency Services;

Case [2002] WASC 139 31 May 2002

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Discovery & Disclosure

Appeal

Administrative Law

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

RE MICHELLE ROBERTS, HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES & ORS; EX PARTE REILLY & ANOR [2002] WASC 139

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 139
Case No:	CIV:1609/2002	Heard:	27 MAY 2002
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	31/05/02
No of pages:	31	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications for orders nisi discharged
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	KEVIN WILLIAM REILLY MICHAEL REILLY MICHELLE ROBERTS, MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES BARRY ELDON MATTHEWS, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WILLIAM STUART COLEMAN ANTHONY RICHARD BEECH JENNIFER HILDA SMITH AS THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Order nisi for certiorari Test for arguable case Commissioner of Police Loss of confidence in applicants Requirements for natural justice Administrative arrangements for appeal Industrial relations Extent of powers on an enquiry Failure to allow evidence on oath Whether procedurally unfair
Legislation:	Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s 34, s80ZE Police Act 1892 (WA), s 8
Case References:	Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Menner & Ors v Commissioner of Police (1997) 74 IR 472 Parker & Ors v Miller & Ors, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980249; 8 May 1998 Re Matthews; Ex parte Harrison [2001] WASC 61 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 Brighton City Corporation v Selpam Pty Ltd [1987] VR 54 Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Environmental Protection Authority & Anor; Ex parte Coastal Water Alliance of Western Australia Inc, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960159; 26 March 1996 Foster v Jododex Aust Pty Ltd (1972) CLR 421 Haoucher v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648 Harrison v Pattison (1988) 14 ALD Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 In Re Capobianco, Principal Building Surveyor of the City of Melville; Ex parte Castelli, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980567; 25 September 1998 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Mahon v Air New Zealand [1984] AC 808 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 Minister for Police & Anor v WAPU (2000) WAIRC 00174 NCSC v News Corp Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296 O'Rourke v Miller (1985) 156 CLR 342 Pearlow v Pearlow (1953) 90 CLR 70 Perpetual Trustees WA Limited v City of Joondalup, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990195; 16 April 1999 R v Anderson; Ex parte Ipec-Air Pty Ltd (1965) 113 CLR 177 R v Commissioner of Police; Ex parte Ramsey [1993] 2 Qd R 171 R v The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte 2HD Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 45 Roderick v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation Ltd (1992) 39 FCR 134 Russian Commercial & Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE MICHELLE ROBERTS, HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES & ORS; EX PARTE REILLY & ANOR [2002] WASC 139 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 27…

Details

AGLC: Re Michelle Roberts, Honourable Minister for Police and Emergency Services; [2002] WASC 139
Case: [2002] WASC 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application for a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus, alternatively a writ of prohibition, against the Honourable Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, and three Commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission of Western Australia. The applicants, Kevin William Reilly and Michael Reilly, sought to challenge the Commissioner's decision to dismiss them from the Western Australian Police Service under the Police Act 1892 (WA) s 8. The applicants alleged procedural unfairness and denial of natural justice during the disciplinary process. The court considered whether the applicants had established an arguable case for the grant of an order nisi. The court examined the administrative arrangements (the "Protocol") between the Commissioner and the Police Union, which provided a framework for the disciplinary process. The court concluded that the Protocol was not binding and did not confer jurisdiction on the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC). However, for the purpose of this application, the court proceeded on the assumption that the Protocol was valid. The court found that the applicants had not established an arguable case of procedural unfairness in relation to the discovery process or the failure to allow evidence on oath. The court also concluded that the IRC's decision to differentiate between the applicants and other officers involved in the joint activity did not give rise to an arguable case of error. The applications for orders nisi were discharged.

Orders