Rogers, Peter v Jacobsen, Johannes - [1995] FCA 932

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - search warrant issued under s 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - requiring production of fishermen's returns provided to the Fisheries Department of Western Australia - warrant issued to Australian Federal Police in connection with possible offences against Commonwealth law - whether public interest immunity attaches to fishermen's returns to prevent execution of the warrants - existence of public interest immunity a discretionary question involving balancing of competing interests - interest in maintaining confidentiality of information provided in confidence pursuant to statute - competing public interest relating to investigation of possible offences against Commonwealth law.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) - s 39B, s 79
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 10
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) - s 16, s 263
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) - s 3C
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) - s 5(1)
Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) - s 60A
Fisheries Act 1905 (WA) - s 18, s 19
Public Service Regulations - reg 35

Alister v The Queen (1983-1984) 154 CLR 404
Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Customs and Excise Commission (No. 2) [1974] AC 405
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council v Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (Unreported, 30 August 1995)
Arno v Forsyth (1986) 9 FCR 576
Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Ltd (1989) 20 FCR 403
Jacobsen v Rogers (1995) 127 ALR 159
Brewer v Castles (No 3) (1984) 52 ALR 581
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1

PETER ROGERS v JOHANNES JACOBSEN AND TERENCE LESTER DIBB

No. WAG 85 of 1995

FOSTER, HILL & LINDGREN JJ
16 NOVEMBER 1995
SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY     ) No. WAG 85 of 1995
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

On appeal from the Honourable Mr Justice French in the Federal Court of Australia held at Perth in Action No. WAG 28 of 1995 (on remittal from the High Court of Australia).

BETWEEN:PETER ROGERS

Appellant (Applicant)

AND:JOHANNES JACOBSEN AND TERENCE LESTER DIBB

Respondents

JUDGES MAKING ORDERS: FOSTER, HILL & LINDGREN JJ

DATE: 16 NOVEMBER 1995

PLACE: SYDNEY (HEARD IN PERTH)

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of this appeal.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of:

(i)The original application being WAG Nos 19 and 20 of 1992;

(ii)The first appeal being WAG No 203 of 1992;

(iii)The remitted application being WAG No 28 of 1995.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY     ) No. WAG 85 of 1995
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

On appeal from the Honourable Mr Justice French in the Federal Court of Australia held at Perth in Action No. WAG 28 of 1995 (on remittal from the High Court of Australia).

BETWEEN:PETER ROGERS

Appellant (Applicant)

AND:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rogers, Peter v Jacobsen, Johannes and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] FCA 932
Decision Date: 16 Nov 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia, comprising Foster, Hill, and Lindgren JJ, heard an appeal brought by Peter Rogers, the Executive Director of Fisheries for Western Australia, against the decision of French J to dismiss his application to restrain the execution of two search warrants issued under s 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The warrants, issued by a Stipendiary Magistrate for Western Australia, authorized the Australian Federal Police to seize documents related to the Western Australia rock lobster fishing industry, believed to be relevant to an investigation into alleged income tax evasion. The primary issue was whether public interest immunity applied to prevent the execution of the warrants, specifically concerning fishermen's returns provided to the Fisheries Department of Western Australia.

The court considered whether the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information provided in the returns outweighed the public interest in the investigation and prosecution of the alleged offences. The Fisheries Act 1905 (WA) provided for the confidentiality of such information, but the High Court had previously held that s 10 of the Crimes Act bound the Crown in right of Western Australia, allowing the warrants to be validly issued. The court balanced the need for accurate data to manage the fishery sustainably against the need to investigate and prosecute tax evasion.

The court found that the public interest in investigating and prosecuting serious offences against Commonwealth law outweighed the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the fishermen's returns. The returns were crucial for the proper management of the fishery, but the potential for tax evasion warranted their seizure. The court rejected the argument that the execution of the warrants would lead to widespread falsification of returns, noting that such actions would likely be detected and penalized under the Fisheries Act.

The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and the appellant should pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the previous proceedings. The judges noted that while public interest immunity might be raised in the context of executing a search warrant, it was typically more appropriate to address such issues in subsequent proceedings where the specific documents in question can be identified.

Orders