Sandery v Commissioner of Police

Administrative Law - seizure of monies

- application f o r order

allowing further time wlchin

whlch to loclqe application for

order of review - whether “declsion“ within

s.3 Administrativs

Decislons (Judicial Review) Act 1977

- ambit of review of

decision to seize	- matters relevant	to exercise of discretion
under s.ll(l)(c).

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) A&

1977

SS.3,5,11(l)(C)

Custortls Act 1901 55.203, 205, 208A, 229A

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976

Burton v. Honan ( 1 9 5 2 ) 86 C.L.R.

169

French v. O’Connor (unreported, 23rd May 1985,

i\Torthrop J.)

Bert Needham AutonotiE Co. Pty Ltd v. Comnissioner of

Taxation (1976) l0 A.L.:?.

501

Pearce v. Button (1985) 60 A.L.R. 537

Phlllp Morris Incorporated	v. Adam P. Brom Male Fashions Ptv
-	Ltd (1981) 148 C.L.R. 457

Hunter Vallev Developm?nts Ptv Ltd

v. Minister for Horn?

Affalrs and Environment (1984) 58 A.L.R.

305

Bruce Douqlas Sanderv

. Commissloner of Police, Australim

Federal Pollce, John hrnold Schulte,	J.C. Johnson and
Conmonwealth of Bustrtu
No. G357 of 1985
Jackson J. 27 February 1986 Sydney

I N THE

FEDERAL

COIJRT

AUSTRALIA

) )

NEW	S O U T H	X A L E S	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	No.	G 3 5 7 of 1985
)

D I V I S I O N

G E N E R A L

BETWEEN :

BRUCE

DOUGLAS

AKDERY

A p p l i c a n t

AND :

COMMISSIONER

O F

P O L I C E ,

A U S T R q L I A N

F E D E P A L

P O L I C E

JOHN

ARNOLD

SCHULTE,

J . C .

JOH:ISON

and

COMMON'iJE.?LTH

A U S T R A L I A

R e s p o n d e n t s

COFAEI:

JACKSON

I . .

DATE :

ZR-

fl?a<cL

1986

PLACE :

SYDNEY

MINUTES OF ORDER

The	C o u r t orders :

T h a t

t h e

t i m e

w i t h i n

wh ich

t h e a p p l i c a n t nay

f i l e a n

a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r

r e v l e w under

the

A d m l n i s t r a t i v e

D e c i s l o n s

(Judicial R e v i e w )

A c t

1977 of

t h e dec l s lons and

c o n d u c t oi

JOHN

ARNOLD

S C H U L T E ,

t h e

secone

n a m e d

r e s p o n d e n t

I n selzlng

fron t h e applicant o n t h e 21s% day of

J u n e 1985

the s u m of TBIRTY

EIGHT

HOUSAND

THREE

HUNDRED

AND

F I F T Y

D O L L A R S

( $ 3 8 , 3 5 0 . 0 0 )

i n Australian

B a n k

Notes	be ex tended u n t i l 4 . 1 5	P . N .	on	F r i d a y ,	7 t h
March	1 9 8 6 .

T h a t t he re be

order as

to cos ts .

Note:

S e t t l e m e n t and e n t r y of

orders

is d e a l t w i t h i n

O r d e r 36 of

t h e Federal C o u r t

R u l e s .

. .

-16-

I shall make an Qrder in terms of paragraph l(a) of the

Notice of Motion extending the time within which the applicant

may file an application for review under the Administrative

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 of the decisions and conduct

of John Arnold Schulte, the second named respondent in

seizing

from the applicant on the 21st day of June 1985 the sum of

.$38,350,00	in Australian Bank Notes until 4.15 pm on Friday, 7th
March 1986.

I certify that this and the /S preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Jackson.

Associate:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sandery v Commissioner of Police involved Bruce Douglas Sandery, the applicant, who sought to extend the time limit for filing an application for judicial review of certain decisions made by John Arnold Schulte, a second named respondent, who is associated with the Australian Federal Police. The central issue was the seizure by Schulte of a sum of $38,350.00 from Sandery on June 21, 1985, in Australian Bank Notes. The applicant's primary concern was to challenge the legality of this seizure, and he needed additional time to file the application for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the decision to seize the monies constituted a "decision" within the meaning of section 3 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and if so, what was the scope of the review regarding this decision. Another key issue was identifying the relevant matters that should be taken into account when exercising discretion under section 11(1)(c) of the same Act. The court was also required to consider the appropriate legislative provisions and precedents that might influence the decision on whether the time for filing the application should be extended.

The court, presided over by Justice Jackson, ruled in favour of the applicant by extending the time within which Sandery could file his application for judicial review. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court determined that the seizure did indeed constitute a "decision" subject to judicial review and that the scope of such review was broad enough to encompass the applicant's concerns. Furthermore, the court found that the application of the discretionary powers under section 11(1)(c) warranted a thorough examination of the relevant factors, including the necessity for the extension to ensure justice was served.

The final orders of the court were that the time for filing the application for judicial review was extended to 4.15 pm on Friday, March 7, 1986, and that no order as to costs was to be made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established