Legal Research
Cases
Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth)

Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth)

Link copied

Case Copied 12 October 1984 31 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: MICHAEL JEROME YOUNG, THE SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE
And: ERIC ADRIAN QUIN; TINA WONG; DAVID YUNG TE CHOW; CHAROEN RIRASATIK and
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
No. G 296 of 1984
Administrative Law - Evidence
56 ALR 168 - 3 FCR 293

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Wilcox J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act - Committal proceedings - Discretion to review - Claim for public interest immunity - Evidence sought to be elicited in cross-examination - Affidavit of police officer claiming immunity - Whether magistrate may permit cross-examination of police officer - Scope of cross-examination.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.5

Evidence - Privilege - Public interest immunity - Whether deponent claiming may be cross-examined - Whether claim must be made by Minister or departmental head.

HEADNOTE

1. A claim of public interest immunity may be made by any informed person, particularly one having official responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the claim. The ability to make such a claim is not confined to a Minister of State or his permanent head.

Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co. Ltd (1942) AC 624; Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade (No. 2)(1983) 2 AC 394, distinguished.

2. A deponent of an affidavit by which a claim of public interest immunity is raised is not immune from cross-examination to the extent to which the judge or magistrate in his discretion thinks fit to allow it.

Registrar of the Workers' Compensation Commission (N.S.W.) v. FAI Insurances Ltd unreported (Workers' Compensation Commission of New South Wales, McGrath J., 26 November 1979); R. v. Bebic unreported (Court of Criminal Appeal (N.S.W.), Full Court, 14 October 1982), followed.

3. Observations concerning the undesirability except in extraordinary circumstances of the court intervening in relation to a decision of a magistrate in the course of committal proceedings.

Souter v. Webb (1984) 2 FCR 193; Lamb v. Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533; Choo Cheng Kui v. Quinn unreported (Federal Court of Australia, Full Court, 25 September 1984); Sankey v. Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 26 and 81-82; R. v. Iorlano (1983) 58 ALJR 22; Clyne v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1984) 58 ALJR 493, referred to.

Rogers v. Home Secretary (1973) AC 388; Alister v. The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 97; Conway v. Rimmer (1968) AC 910; Burmah Oil Co. Ltd v. Bank of England (1980) AC 1090; Re Grosvenor Hotel (1964) Ch 464; MacPherson v. The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512; R. v. Apostilides (1984) 58 ALJR 371, referred to.

HEARING

Sydney, 1984, September 28; October 12. #DATE 12:10:1984

APPLICATION.

Application for orders of review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1971 (Cth).

W.H. Nicholas Q.C. and J.R. Sackar, for the applicant.

G.R. James Q.C. and E. Fullerton for the first respondent.

B.R. Burbidge Q.C. and R.A. Baker, for the second respondent.

K. Chapple, for the…

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 Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth) 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: [1984] FCA 329
Decision Date: 12 OCTOBER 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth), the applicant sought to cross-examine a police officer during committal proceedings. The dispute centred around the scope of cross-examination and the application of public interest immunity. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was whether the magistrate had the authority to allow the cross-examination of a police officer whose evidence was sought to be elicited under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The respondent, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, argued that the magistrate did not have the requisite discretion to permit such cross-examination.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve involved the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, specifically focusing on the magistrate's discretion to review and the application of public interest immunity in committal proceedings. The court had to determine whether the magistrate could permit cross-examination of the police officer, considering the affidavit provided by the officer that claimed immunity. The applicant argued that the magistrate had the discretion to allow the cross-examination to ensure a fair trial, while the respondent contended that such discretion was not available under the statutory framework.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the magistrate did not possess the discretion to permit the cross-examination of the police officer under the circumstances presented. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions did not confer the requisite authority on the magistrate to allow such cross-examination, particularly when the evidence sought was protected by a claim of public interest immunity. The court found that the statutory framework did not permit the magistrate to override the immunity claim made by the police officer. Consequently, the application for the magistrate to permit the cross-examination was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application was dismissed without any order as to costs. The court also directed that unless a Notice of Appeal was filed within the specified period, the exhibits could be handed out 21 days from the date of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Direct that unless a Notice of Appeal is filed in the meantime exhibits may be handed out at the expiration of 21 days from today.

Application dismissed. No order as to 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.