Legal Research
Cases
Sleiman v Murray

Sleiman v Murray

Case [2009] ACTSC 82 15 July 2009

Abuse of Process

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Criminal Law

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

YOUSHA SLEIMAN v JASON MURRAY
[2009] ACTSC 82 (15 July 2009)
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – forensic procedure – taking of buccal swab for DNA analysis – magistrate permitted to order procedure on a suspect – whether an order should be made permitting a procedure – Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT) s 34 – balancing the public interests of obtaining evidence and the physical integrity of suspects.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review of administrative decision – magistrate’s order that forensic procedure be carried out – whether decision of an administrative character subject to review – Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), s 3A(1).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review of administrative decisions – error of law – no evidence – taking into account irrelevant considerations – Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) s 5 – no issue of principle.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 92, 230
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT), Pts 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, Div 2.5.2, ss 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 85, 94A
Magistrates CourtAct (ACT), ss 9B, 12, 47(1)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), s 5, Dictionary
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 464M
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 12, 22
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt ID, Div 5B, ss 4AAA, 23XX, 23YDAC, 23YDAE, 23YDAG, 23YDACA,
Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 97, 82, 88
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 137
Walker K, “Persona designata, incompatibility and the separation of powers” (1997) 8 PLR 153
Stuart F, “Commonwealth forensic procedures legislation” (1995) 69 L Inst J 910
Sackett D L and Ors, “Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t” (1996) 312 British Medical Journal 71-2
Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Model Forensic Procedures Bill and the Proposed National DNA Database (1999)
Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101
Grollo and Anor v Bates and Ors (1994) 53 FCR 218
R v B [1995] 2 NZLR 172
King v McLellan [1974] VR 773
R v Boulton (1871) 12 Cox CC 87
McAneny v Kearney; Ex parte Kearney [1966] Qd R 306

Hilton v Wells & Ors (1985) 157 CLR 57
Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307
Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348
K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410
Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1
Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant s20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165
Barac v Thexton [2008] ASTSC 137
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Ors (1990) 170 CLR 321
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Ors (1985) 162 CLR 24

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 Sleiman v Murray

Details

AGLC: Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82
Case: [2009] ACTSC 82
Decision Date: 15 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sleiman, appealed against a magistrate's decision to order a buccal swab for DNA analysis under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT). The appeal raised two primary legal issues: the extent of the magistrate's authority to order such a procedure, and the validity of the magistrate's decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT).

The court examined whether the magistrate's order fell within the statutory authority provided by section 34 of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT). The court held that the magistrate had the discretion to order the buccal swab where there was a sufficient basis to believe that the procedure would yield evidence pertinent to a serious indictable offence. The court balanced the public interest in obtaining evidence against the physical integrity of the suspect, and found that the magistrate had appropriately exercised this discretion. The court also concluded that the magistrate's decision was not subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) as it did not involve an administrative decision of a kind that could be reviewed.

In light of these findings, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's order. The court found that the magistrate had not erred in law, taken into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to consider relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed with no further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

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.

Actions

Citations

Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82

Most Recent Citation

Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123

Cases Citing This Decision

Child a (a pseudonym) v Childrens Court of the Australian [2023] ACTSC 208
Citation 1

…poration Pty Ltd v Nova Builders Pty Ltd [2023] ACTCA 30 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82 Sleiman v Murray [2010] ACTCA 2 UD v Bishop [2021] ACTSCFC 1…
Beniamini v Craig [2017] ACTSC 30
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…is clear that this has been done. Such an approach does permit less detailed sentencing remarks than are appropriate in this Court: Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82; 231 FLR 224 at 236; [75].…
Burow v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 61
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…pender J); ACT DPP v McDowall [2002] ACTSC 72 at [22]–[30] (Higgins J); Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 at [11]-[25] (Connolly J); Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 at [32]-[34] (Refshauge J); Travini v Starczewski at [66]-[67] (Refshauge J), Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11 at [79]-[81] (Refshauge ACJ); Bloxham v Wyt…
OH v Driessen [2015] ACTSC 148
Citation 4

…147 CLR 383 R v JJ [2014] ACTCA 23 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24 R v Traiconi (1990) 49 A Crim R 417 R v TW (2011) 6 ACTLR 18 Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 Suleman v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 70 Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629…
Burow v Hoyer [2015] ACTSC 21
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…That decision has received much criticism, especially more recently. I have expressed my view in Sleiman v Murray (2009) FLR 224 at 230; [32]-[34] that it should not be followed.…
SK v Children's Court of the Australian Capital Territory [2014] ACTSC 255
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…a check by an independent person that is designed to ensure that only justified procedures are undertaken. The magistrate acts as persona designata : Sleiman v Murray (2010) 173 ACTLR 1 at [23]-[26].…
Hocking v Medical Board of Australia [2014] ACTSC 48
Citation 7

…y (2008) 235 CLR 286 Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v Minister for Industrial Affairs (SA) (1995) 183 CLR 552 Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 Spencer v Bamber [2012] NSWCA 274 (5 September 2012) Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509 Taylor v The Medical Board of South A…
Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…The approach has been trenchantly criticised in Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 at 5–8; [11]–[25]. I followed that decision in Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 at 230; [32]–[34] in also expressing strong reservations about Kelly v Apps . I remain of the views I there expressed. That is to say, I do not consider th…
R v Gregory Dean Hill (No 2) [2010] ACTSC 24
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…Act 1933 (ACT) gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction, on the principle in Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101. For the reasons set out in Sleiman v Murray (2009) 231 FLR 224 (at 230), I would respectfully not follow that decision.…
Yousha Sleiman v Jason Murray [2010] ACTCA 2
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…the Court dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of a Magistrate. For his Honour’s reasons for that order see Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82. Like his Honour, we find it unnecessary to set out in full the background facts. It is sufficient, for present purposes, to appreciate the circumstanc…
Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…I have, however, expressed my doubts elsewhere about this decision: Sleiman v Murray [2009] ACTSC 82, a concern expressed by Connolly J in Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1. I noted in Sleiman v Murray , too, that the decision in Kelly v Apps seemed to be inconsistent with what the High Court had held in Reid v Howa…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30
Citation 1

…rim R 195 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant s20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 Barac v Thexton [2008] ASTSC 137 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Ors (1990) 170 CLR 321 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Walls…
Kelly v Apps [2000] FCA 687
Citation 2

…ys-General, Model Forensic Procedures Bill and the Proposed National DNA Database (1999) Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101 Grollo and Anor v Bates and Ors (1994) 53 FCR 218 R v B [1995] 2 NZLR 172 King v McLellan [1974] VR 773 R v Boulton (1871) 12 Cox CC 87 McAneny v Kearney ; Ex parte Kearney [1966] Qd R 306…
R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1
Citation 3

…Tribunal v Bond & Ors (1990) 170 CLR 321 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Ors (1985) 162 CLR 24 R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159 Kovacs (2000) 111 A Crim R 374 R v R [2003] 2 Qd R 544 No. SC 592 of 2009 Judge: Refshauge J Supreme Court of the ACT Date: 15 July 2009 IN THE SUPRE…
Grollo v Palmer [1995] HCA 26
Citation 4

…Hilton v Wells & Ors (1985) 157 CLR 57 Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307 Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azz…
Ridgeway v the Queen [1995] HCA 66
Citation 5

…(1990) 169 CLR 307 Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Re Minister f…
Grollo v Bates & Ors; Howard v Bates [1994] HCATrans 236
Citation 6

…Proposed National DNA Database (1999) Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101 Grollo and Anor v Bates and Ors (1994) 53 FCR 218 R v B [1995] 2 NZLR 172 King v McLellan [1974] VR 773 R v Boulton (1871) 12 Cox CC 87 McAneny v Kearney ; Ex parte Kearney [1966] Qd R 306…
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33
Citation 7

…Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant s20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 Barac v Thexton [2008] ASTSC 137 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Ors (1990) 170 CLR 321 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Ors (1985) 162 CLR 24 R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159 Kovacs (2000) 111 A Cr…
Love v Attorney-General (NSW) [1990] HCA 4
Citation 8

…Hilton v Wells & Ors (1985) 157 CLR 57 Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307 Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azz…
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40
Citation 9

…on [2008] ASTSC 137 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Ors (1990) 170 CLR 321 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Anor v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Ors (1985) 162 CLR 24 R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159 Kovacs (2000) 111 A Crim R 374 R v R [2003] 2 Qd R 544 No. SC 592 of 2009 Judge: Refshauge J Supreme Cour…
Hilton v Wells [1985] HCA 16
Citation 10

…Hilton v Wells & Ors (1985) 157 CLR 57 Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307 Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Az…
House v R [1936] HCA 40
Citation 11

…and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Af…
House v The King 63 WN 176
Citation 12

…7 Grollo v Palmer and Ors (1995) 184 CLR 348 K v Cullen & Anor (1994) 53 FCR 410 Evans v Shiels (2004) 185 FLR 1 Reid v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Re Minister for Immigration and Multi…
[1995] 2 NZLR 172 [1995] 2 NZLR 172
Citation 13

…atabase (1999) Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101 Grollo and Anor v Bates and Ors (1994) 53 FCR 218 R v B [1995] 2 NZLR 172 King v McLellan [1974] VR 773 R v Boulton (1871) 12 Cox CC 87 McAneny v Kearney ; Ex parte Kearney [1966] Qd R 306…
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd 2002 SC13437
Citation 14

…v Howard & Ors (1995) 184 CLR 1 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Vickers v The Queen (2006) 160 A Crim R 195 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant s20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165 Barac v Thexton [2008] ASTSC 137 Australian Br…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (ACT) 34, 82, 88, 97
5 mentions
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) 3A(1), 5
3 mentions
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 230, 92
3 mentions
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) 12, 22
3 mentions
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) 464M
2 mentions
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) 137
2 mentions
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) 20
2 mentions
Constitution of Australia (Cth)
1 mention
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention
Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 (Cth)
1 mention
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
1 mention