Souter v Webb - [1984] FCA 189

Re: GARY RONALD SOUTER
And: KEVIN ROBERT WEBB & GARRY ANTHONY WARD (1984) 2 FCR 193
No. G.83 of 1984
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

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

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - ADJR Act - application to review decision by magistrate committing for trial - principles guiding exercise of court's discretion - whether "exceptional circumstances" shown - whether there is lack of a prima facie case - whether evidence to indicate applicant in possession of narcotic goods - relevance of intention of prosecution to add a count alleging attempt to take possession.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Decision of magistrate to commit for trial - Whether exceptional circumstances - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s. 5.

HEADNOTE

Held: 1. The court should entertain a submission for review, upon the ground that there is no prima facie case, of a magistrate's decision to commit only where it is abundantly clear, without intricate consideration of the evidence, that there is a failure to establish a necessary ingredient in the charge.

2. Once it appears that the no case submission requires investigation of the minutiae of the evidence and the consideration of the proper inferences from circumstantial events then the stage has been reached at which it is proper to dismiss the application for review without further consideration.

Lamb v. Moss (1983) 49 A.L.R. 533; Bourke v. Hamilton (1977) 1 N.S.W.L.R. 470; Sankey v. Whitlam (1978) 142 C.L.R. 1; Shapowloff v. Dunn (1973) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 468 at 470; Gorman v. Fitzpatrick unreported (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Foster J., 23 September 1983); Clyne v. Scott (1983) 52 A.L.R. 405; Bacon v. Rose (1972) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 793; Seymour v. Attorney-General (1984) 1 F.C.R. 416; Ward v. Williams (1955) 92 C.L.R. 496; R. v. Bush (1975) 1 N.S.W.L.R. 298 at 324; (1975) 24 F.L.R. 346 at 377; R. v. Rawcliffe (1977) 1 N.S.W.L.R. 219; (1977) 32 F.L.R. 252; R. v. Kayal (1979) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 117; (1979) 38 F.L.R. 284; R. v. Kayrouz unreported (6 July 1979), referred to.

HEARING

Sydney, 1984, July 2, 3, 11. #DATE 11:7:1984

APPLICATION.

Application for orders of review pursuant to s. 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

K. Horler, for the applicant.

P. Roberts, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the applicant: Watsons.

Solicitor for the respondent: T. A. Sherman, Australian Government Solicitor.

G.F.V.

ORDER

Application for review dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent of the appli cation.

Application dismissed with costs.

JUDGE1

The applicant seeks review, pursuant to s.5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of a decision by the first respondent, a Stipendiary Magistrate, that he be committed for trial for an offence against the Customs Act, 1900 namely:

"That on 2 May 1983 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did without reasonable excuse have in his possession prohibited imports to which section…

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 Souter v Webb

Details

AGLC: Souter, Gary Ronald v Webb, Kevin Robert [1984] FCA 189 ((1984) 2 FCR 193)
Case: [1984] FCA 189
Decision Date: 11 JULY 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Souter v Webb, the dispute involved an application for judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate to commit the applicant, Souter, for trial on a charge of possession of narcotic goods. The Federal Court was tasked with determining the merits of the application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.

The court was required to assess whether the magistrate had exercised their discretion in a manner that could be reviewed under the ADJR Act, specifically focusing on whether the magistrate had overlooked a relevant consideration or made an error in the application of the law. Key issues included whether "exceptional circumstances" existed to warrant a review of the magistrate's decision, whether there was a lack of a prima facie case against Souter, and the relevance of the prosecution's intention to add a count alleging an attempt to take possession of the narcotic goods.

The court found that the magistrate had not erred in exercising their discretion, and that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a review. The evidence presented indicated that there was a prima facie case against Souter, and the prosecution's intention to add a count was not a factor that would influence the court's decision. The court held that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion, and the application for review was dismissed. Additionally, the court ordered that the applicant, Souter, was to pay the costs of the respondent, Webb.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent of the appli cation.

Application dismissed with 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.