Sullivan v Department of Transport

0rd.er.s	S. 47. l
--_I--

VG 116 of 1977

JUDGES MAi(IHG ORDER :

Smithers, Deane and Fisher JJ.

DATE OF ORDER:

28 June 1978

Melbourne

COURT ORDERS THAT :

The appeal be

all.owed.

The

matter be remit ted

to t he Administrative

Aype a1 S

Tribunal t o be relzeard.

c o s t s

and

inc iden ta l

t o t h i s appeal..

He s p o n d a t

CORAM: Smithers, Deane and	Fisher	JJ.
28th June 1378

SMITJ-ERS J .

: This i s an appeal t o the Court

from a decisiolz of t h e

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

(the Tribunal) given

on 15 Kove[;!ber '!37'

whereby the Tril>tu?al affirmed the dec is ion of

the Delegate

the Secre ta ry of t he Departmen-t of Transport of

7 March 1977

"refusing t o ' grant the applic3n.t a commercial^ p i l o t l i cence and

radiotelephone operator l icence".

The

appl icant

i s

r e fe r r ed

and determine the appeal and rray make

such order as

it t l ~ i ~ z l c s

appropr ia te by reason of

i t s dec is ion .

Tize

jurisd.ic-Lion so

exercised

i s par-t of

t h e o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n

t h i s

Court

The circumstances

leading t o this appeal-,

the issues

which have

a r i s e n and. a summary of the proceedings

before the

Tribunal which

are under

appeal are

s e t f o r t h

i n the reasons

f o r judgment of my brother Demc which I have had the advantage

reading.

I would express my

concurrence with what i s s o s e t

f o r t h

and

adopt

the

same

€ o r re ference

these

reasons .

The grounds of appea l appear ing

'the appel lan t 's

no t i ce of

appeal

included

the

following:-

"l.

The said

decis

ion

appealed

from - .

( a )

was wrong i n law;

( b )

was agains't the evidence

and

the

weight

of evidence.

The

sa id Tr ibuna l

shou ld a t

i t s hear ing

the

30th

day

of September. 1977 -

( a )

hzve

adjourned

the hearing

t o a f f o r d

the p l a in t i f f t he oppor - tun i ty

c a l l i n g

.	as a witness , and 'Lo	ob ta in t h e evidence of
Dr. Larry Evans ;

The

sa id Tr ibunal

' S

f a i l u r e -to -

(a)

adJourn i t s proceedirigs

and

further

hearing;

( b )

in€'orrn t h e p l a i n t i f f

h i s rig1'i.t hereinbelore

r e f e r r e d

t o -

each cons t i tu ted

f a . i l u re to exe rc i se

i t s powers

and

d i s c r e t i o n s

Jutlicia1.1y

and

consti tu.ted

an e r r o r

of law.

4 .

The

said T r i b u n n l ' s

f a i l u r e s

r e f e r r e d

t o

i n

paragraph 3 hereof each

involved

f a i l u r e on

i t s part

i n i t s duty t o ac t f a i r l y towards

the

p l a i n t i f f

and

o p e r a k d t o the prcJudice

the

p l a i n t i f f

end

cons- t i tuted an

c'r 'ror of

law.

The

sa id Tr ibuna l ' s dec i s ion

and

f inding

that-

(a )

t h e p l a i n t i f f

had

establ ished medical

his- tory o r c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s

o f

psychosis ;

(b )

t he re

was

ground

t o g r a n t

l i cence sub jec t

t o

the condi t ion and/or l imitat ions under

sub-

regula t ion

( 2 ) o:P

regula t ion 57 o f t h e A i r

Navigation Regulations -

was wrong in law and	against the evidence	and the
weight of evidence.

. e * *

The

s a i d T r i b u n a l f a i l e d t o g i v e

due

weight

t o t h e

s t a t e

o f

t h e

p l - a in t i f f ' s med ica l

and

c l i n i c a l

c o n d i t i o n i n

November

1976

and subsequent thereto

( o f

which

t h e r e

was

ev idence) in concluding tha t

t h e

paramount

i n t e r e s t s

a i r s a f e t y r e q u i r e d t h e

re€usa l

any

l icence pursuant to sub- regula t ion

57. ( 2 )

of the

A i r Navigation Regulations.

sphere of government .'

The

objec t ive i s the achievement

j u s t i c e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s

be tween the c i t izen and the S ta te

compatible with s-tandards only defil lable as those of good governr-e:

This is a funct ion of a very

spec ia l na ture .

Its

proper

performance depends

upon t h e Tribunal having the

wide powers and

. .

C r i t i c a l

t o t h e

g ran t

o r r e f u s a l

the Delegate

o f

the

Secre ta ry of

t h e

Departlnent o'f Transport of

renewal o f t he

a p p l i c a n t ' s

commercial

p i lo t ' s

l i cence and , rad io te lephone

opera tor ' s Mcence

were

the p rov i s ions in r egu la t ion

the

A i r Nayip t ion

Regula t ions ( the Regulations).

So f a r as mater ia l

t h a t

regula t ion

reads

"57 . - (l)

Subject

t o

t h i s

regula t ion , an appl icant

for

l i cence under

t h i s Par t

i s n o t e l i g i b l e

f o r t he

g ran t o f

such a

l i c e n c e , unless

By Pma. 2.3 of S . 47.1

o€ the A f r Navigatj

-_I

Orders

t h e

I 1 n o t i f i e

2 '

medical

s-tandards

include

the

requirement

that

Ifthe

applicant

'shall

have

es tab l i shed medica l h i s tory

o r

c l i n i c a l d i a g m s i s

of .

. (i)

a psychosis. It

T h i s requirement i s sub jec t t o t he

qualif. ' ;bation that a

h i s t o r y

o f

acute toxic psychosis need

no'i

regarded as disqual i fying l lprovided	tha t	the appl icant	has	sufferlzd
no permanent impairment1t .

.	.	It i s provided by r egu la t ion 2cj5(1)	t h a t the Di.rectcr-Ge!;erz.l
. .

sha l l no t re fuse

t o g ran t a l i cence except

one or more

grounds

spec i f ied

there in .

f a r a s material

t h a t

regula- t ion-reads

as f o i m s

"255 -( 1 )

The Director-General

s h a l l not refuse

t o

grant

l i cence or c e r t i f i c a t e except o n one

o r

the following grounds,

namely :-

t h a t the

appl icant has

f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y a

requirement prescribed

or spec i f ied under

these Regula-tions

i n r e l a t i o n t o t he g ran t

o f

t he l i cence

o r

c e r t i f i c a t e ;

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

has

made

i n ,

o r in

connexion v i t h ,

h i s

app l i ca t ion

s t a t emen t t ha t

was

f a l s e o r

mi s l ead ing in

material

par t icu lar . I l

Regulation

2 5 5 ( 2 ) provides

fol lows:-

Dear

S i r ,

Your

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

rencwa.1 of

your

Commercial

and.

Ra.diotelephone licences,

da t ed 16.11 .76 has been collsj-dered

by me

as de1eg:ste o f t h e Secretary, and

I have decid-ed

t o

refuse and hereby

r e€use to g ran t t he l i cence

you

have applied

for.

I n

accordance,

therefore ,

with Regulation 2 5 5 ( 2 ) of

the Air

Navigation Regul.ation,

I hereby n o t i f y you t h a t

t h e ground of

the r e fusa l i s tha t you have f a i l e d t o

s a t i s f y a requirement prescribed

by or speci€ied under

t h e Air Navigation Regulations,

namely -the medical

standzrds

n o t i f i e d i n

A i r Navigation Orders Part

47.

The

fac ts

and

circumstanccs

t ha t

c o n s t i t u t e

t h i s

ground have been communicated

t o you

l e t t e r from

t he

Di rec to r

o f

Aviation Dledicine.

But by reason of

t h e prdv:i.r,ions

r e p l a t i o n 5 7 ( 2 ) thc

fai1.u~-e

an app l i can t so t o satisfy the requirement * was no?,

i n i t s e l f ,

n e c e s s a r i l y fatal

t o a

renewal

t h e l i c e n c e s i n

questi.on upon condi t ions o r subject t o limitations.

It i s

apparent t h a t the duty

of t h e rjelegzte i n a

case i n which -the

app l i can t f a i l : ; t o

meet

t he

s t a n d a r d s r e f e r r e d t o i n

r eguia t ion

57( 1 ) i s t o proceed to considex, whether having regard to t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e

h e a l t h

o f

the

app l i can t

and

a l l o t h e r

relevant consideration.^

renc?:lnJ.. s u b j e c t t o condi t ions

o r

l i m i t a t i o n s

is appropr ia te .

Iju-t the

terms

r egu la t ion 255(2 j

tend to preclude the Director--General

f rom

making

clear

appl-icant f o r a renewal that

he has considered whether

a g ran t

s u b j e c t t o c o n d i t i o n s

o r l i m i t a t i o n s

would

appropria-Le and

if he- has, why he decided against t1zs . t course.

When t h e ground

of refusal i s expressed in accorclance

with r2gu la t ion 255( I) ( a ) ,

r egu la t idn

5 7 ( 2 ) i s immediately

shown t o have been applicable,

but;

t he no t i€ i ca t ion p rov ides

information t h a t it has been

applied and i f so of the ground upon whj-ch even a g ran t sub jec t

t o condi t ions o r l i m i t a t i o n s

was

not

considered

appropriate .

appears to

t h a t the

i l l o g i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s

t h a t

a r e

relevant conside:rr-lticns

a grant of vhat might

be c a l l e d a

condi t iona l

l i cence

1ni.gl1-t be appropriate .

As a resul- t , when

the

quest ion arose before

th.e T r . i b u n a 1 ,

the Tribunal was

unaware

whether the Delegate

had comidered the

matter, and- i f he had,

why he

considered t h a t

t he course of good govelmment

t h e r e

condi t ions

o r l i m i t a t i o n s which

it would

to impose,

and which,

i f imposed, would

render a renewal of the

l i cences o r one

o f

them

compa-tible with the publ ic

and p r i v a t e

in t e re s t s

i nvo lved .

i n € a c t

t h e m a t t e r

was considered

then

the reasons f o r the

decis ion of

as s t a t e d by him t o

the Tribunal

were

incomplete

i n a

c r i t i c a l

r e s p e c t .

the

mater ia l before the Tr ibunal

d id not appear tha t the

appropriateness of

renewal pursuant

-to r egu la t ion 5 7 ( 2 ) had

i n f a c t

been

considered.

it had

i s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t

t h e

Tribunal was n o t ilnformed G € t he reasons f o r refusing such

renewal.

if it had not then

-the appel lan t ' S second ground of

appeal namely

t h a t t h e r e f u s a l

was

an excessively severe

r e s t r i c t i o n i n

view

h i s

i l l -nes s and subsequent recovery

was

w e l l founded.

T h i s

f a c t o r might

w e l l have

induced the Tribunal

then and

the re

t o seek

amplif icnt ion

the Delegate 's s ta tement

reasons

t o review the decision

and r e n i t t h e m a t t e r

t o the

remained

unexpressed.

such circumstances

an undue burc!en i. s

placed on an expert mernbercf th? Tribunal and

t h e r e a r i s e s

inappropr i a t e s i t ua t ion

s o far as

the

o the r s

are

concerned.

- .

In view

t h e f a c t t h a t

-the appe l l an t

had

c l ea r ly su f fe red

a psychotic episode

February and

March 1976 an adverse finding

under regulat ion

57(1) w a s i n e v i t a b l e ,

and

the

real

quest ion

before -the Delegate

was whether t he appe l l an t had

recovei-ed

s u f f i c i e n t l y

t o be

granted

condi t iona l

l i cence .

That

quzstior?,

involved considerat ion

o€ the

k i n c l of

condi t ions

or l i m i t a t i o n s

t h a t might

p r a c t i c a l

and

reasonable ,

and

f o r that purpose

examination

the na ture

and

ex ten t

o.?

the

a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e

t o meet the

mcdical

standards apeci€Zcd under Air Navigation .

sa id no th ing expres s ly , no r

t i i i nk

i iTpl iedly,

to suggest

''chat

the quest ion of a

condi t iona l

had been considered by.

t h e

Delegate.

Having regard

t o t h e

strength

the evider ,ce that

-the

appel-lant had

e s t ab l i shed h i . s t o r y o f

psychosis

i s dii"Yicu1t

t o t h iuk t h a t he ever

had

any

real. prospec t

e s t a b l i s h i n g

e r r o r i n t h a t

r e s p e c t .

The

only

case

which

the

appellant

'could

hope

t o make was

t h a t h i s recovery was

s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y

cond i t iona l remwal

o f

h i s l i cences .

But

as of ten happens vi th

l i t i g a n t i n p e r s o n

was

a t t r a c t e d -to i s s u e s where

t echn ica l

expertisQ was required and

which he lacked -the competence t o

pursue.

The appellant 's notion'

-khat

he could show from the

.evidence of any of the medical experts

t h a t h i s episode of

February-March

1976 was n o t one of psychosis was

t o t a l l y without

founda-bion.

H i s effor-Ls i n t h i s respect

however,

tended t o .

submerge

the presen-tat ion

t h e aspec t o f his c a s e t h a t

becausl?

h i s recovery he should have

been

granted

condi t iona l

renewal

h i s l i c e n c e s .

Ye-!! t h i s - case was

c l e a r l y propounded.

i n the second

ground

of.

h i s appeal t o the Tr ibunal .

I t was masked

In h i s untutored way

the appellant enckavoured to

prescn-l

h i s c a s e

on these i s sues .

sa id he

des i red t o have the

evidence

D r .

Evans t o show t ha t , a l t hough

Dr. Evans had considered

should not

fly m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t ,

the ground

for t h i s was

tha t

the s t r a i n s and s t r e s s e s of' such flying may

be much greater

than those

o f

c i v i l f l y i n g

o r at

any

r a t e c e r t a i n a r e a s

c i v i l

f l y i n g .

The

appel lan t

in formed

the

ibunal

tha t

D r .

Evans had t o l d him th3.t t h i s was so .

There was ground for

th inking that Dr.

Evans would

s u p p o r t t h i s

view i n what D r ,

Evans

had

a l r eady wr i t t en .

The

sugges t ion

tha t

D r . Evans

considbred the appel lant

f i t for c i v i l f l y i n g

may

well

thought

t o be implied from what Dr. Evans had wr i t t cn .

It appea.red quite

unequivocally, from what the appellant; said to

the

Tribunal

tha t

he des i red

to ques t ion

Dr.

Evans

tha t ma t t e r .

Such

ques t ions

would

have

gone

d i r e c t l y t o the

i s s u e

o f

renewal

condi t iona l

l i cence

and

i nev i t ab ly would have

l e d t o the

p re sen t s t ion

D r .

Evans

views

c3.s

t o t h e a p p e l l a n t

cur ren t and fu tu re s t a t e

health and

i t s r e l a t i o n t o t he na tu re

and

ex ten t

o f

h i s e a r l i e r

psychosis.

t h i s l a s t

r e s p e c t

-Lho nature o f the psychosis

placed

on him

h i s s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r s

went

d i r e c t l y t o this.

Evans

w a p

t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t

who

most

r ecen t ly had examined

the

appe1.lan-t and he had

w r i t t e n : -

That he

i s _I

not

f i t t o p a s s a

m i l i t a r y

aircrew medical- i n view

t he p a r t i c u l a r

and

p e c u l i a r

stresses wll.ich n i l i t a r y pilots

might be required

t o

f a c e d u r i n g t h e i r d u t i e s .

"F.E.

i .ndicates I I I T ' i t E v e r p d ~ e r e ~ ~

m i l i t a r y category but;

apparent ly

l fF.E.ff i s

consis tent with being not

f i t t o pass

mi l i t a ry

aircrew

medical

-i:es"c.

The s ta te rncnt

tha t

there

was

no evidence of any residual.

symptoms was of course of much

importance.

The approval by D r , -

Evans

o f

- the appellant having

i s not a

sound view.

The

i ~ ~ p a c i ;

t h a t may be made by the witness

i n p e r s o n

i s of

the utmost i~xpo:-tance i n understanding and

weighing what he

says and there

.were impl icz t ions i n -the

writ ten s-La-tement which could only be

e luc ida ted by t h e word

D r .

Evar~s himself.

I n my

opinion i f t h e appel. lant was t o p re sen t his

case

reasonably it was

e s s e n t i a l t h a t

Dr. Evans be

c a l l e d as

witness.

The

reason he was n o t c a l l e d was

-that although c x - e c t e d

to appear at t h e hearing he did not ac tua l ly appear .

Counsel

f o r t he respondent indicated

that t h e respondent had taken 90

s t e p s %o have

him

p r e s e n t as

was

under s tood tha t t he

appe l l an t woul-d arrange for him

t o be

prcsen-L.

The

appe'ii.mt

t o l d

the Tribunal tha-t 'cl~c! d o c t o r had

said

t o h

t h a t he

would be present.

That t he appcl-lan-t; desired to quest ion

D r .

Evans i s beyond doubt.

However,

the Tribunal proceeded t o a dec is ion in t he

applica-tj.or1 before

it with0u.t d i r e c t i n g any

inquiries a s t o

D r .

I3van.s'

whereabouts

o r his

inten-Lion a s t o

h i s a t t end ing

t he

One	does not know what tht? appel.la.nt knew about h i s r i g h t s

d u t i e s as an

advocate

o r l - i t i g a n t .

His

general

approach

was

cer ta in ly un- tu tored .

€!e MBS

obviously n.ot competent

t o

handle his own

case properly.

But he d i d n~ake c l e a r tha t h e

wished t o quest ion D r .

Evans on ma-l;tc?err, which would

'have ~ E I ?

r e levant

t o t h e i s s u e

o f whether a

condi%ional renewal of

! -As

l icences

should

be granted. He seemecl t o be under

the

impression -khat his

a b i l i t y -to c a l l Dr.

Evans dcpencied o n D r .

Evans be ing ava i lab le

then and t h e r e .

Af te r it had

been

a s c e r t a i n e d

t h a t

D r .

Evans

al.t!lough

expected by

the appel lan t

to be

i n a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e

hexring

h a d

n o t

i n f a c t

appezred,

t he appe l l an t s a id " In

Lhe

absence

D r .

Evans

the only

v;zy

can

substantia-l;c that

claim i s by

d i r ec t ing ques t ions

t o

D r . Arden o r Colonel NaugShtonll. That claim was t h a t t h e recommendation

of D r .

Evans t ha t the appel lan t

was no t €i%

t o pass

"the

m e d i c a l t e s t f o r f l y i n g m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t

was

based

upon the added stress sornetime:;

imposed on m i l i t a r y a i r c r z v

as opposed to those

involved

c i v i l a v i a t i o n .

But

t o

at tempt

t o f f s u b s t a n t i a t e t h a t c la imff through

Dr.

Arden

o r

Colonel Naughton

was no sub.r;ti.t;u-te for calling D r . Evans a s a

witness .

I n t he

result

the

evidence

o f Dr. Evans

which

the

appe l l an - t c l ea r ly des i r ed

t o submit

was

n o t ca l led because ,

seemed,

he was

llnoi; a ~ a i l a b 1 . e ~ ~ .

appe l l an t ,

rn.ig1s.t

well

have been expected

t o

t e s t i f y

t h a t

t h c

appel lan t was

f i t t o f l y c i v i l a i r c r a f t , a t l e a s t

subject t o

ce r t a in cond i t ions

and

l i m i t a t i o n s .

’

The

s i - h a t i o n a p p e a r s

t o have

been. one

t o which

S. 33

was appl icable .

But the Tribunal

t o o k no ac t ion t o ens?rre

t ha t D r .

Evans

was

ca l l ed .

Inev i t ab ly

however,

t he

ex ten t

t o which

Tribuna.1 wi1.1-

exercise ini t ia-Live in such

matter

depends upon i t s view of what i s invo lved in the proper presenta t ion of. the case of an appl icant . After much

considerat ion I have come t o the conclusion

t h a t i n t h i s case *,e

view

t h e Tribunal was t h a t t h e o n l y r e a l

issue was

whether

the ap.bl icant

had

s u f f e r e d ’ a h i s t o r y

o f

psychosis not occasioned

by acu-be t o x i c i t y .

This accords with

what is stated i n the

reasons f o r t h e decis ion

t h e

Tr ibunal? t h a t

i n t h e l i g h t

t he f ind ing

tha t

the

appc11a.nt

suf fe red

p s y c h o t i c i l l n e s s

and

-that t ha t p s y c h o t i c i l l n e s s

was

not occasioned

a’cute

‘ t o x i c i t y , lls.lt7.l

t h e I-----

A i r NavI~~nt ior !

--.-- Orders determines the

present appl ica t ion l l .

But

t he real

e f f e c t , of

t he f ind ing

was

not

t o de-~crmine

tke appl ica t ion but on ly

-to

c a l l r e g u l a t i o n

5 7 ( 2 j

i n t o opcratAor1.

Clear ly a gremlin had en te red

in to

the

i n combination with the presenta t ion

o f his case by tl12

s.p;~~:?Llsfit

i n a rnrmner which

obscurcd his

rc l innce

on rcgul .nt iol~ 57( 2 ) ,

The

ex is tence of

the d. iscret ion

uncle^?

regula-Lion 5 7 ( 2 ) i s

ce r t a in ly r ecogn i sed in

the reasons of

t h e Tribunal. f o r i t s

decis ion.

But ncvcr the lcss it w u l d appcar t h a t i n the pra.e-t icz1

approach

t o t he quest ion of

the exerc ise

o f

t h a t d i s c r c t i oil,

t h e

cu r ren t and

€u-l;ure hea l tk

the appel lan t

was

t r e a t e d as n o t k~-,~i:--g

s ign i f icance .

The reasons f o r the decis ion do not

cl iscuss

the

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

i!nproved

s t a t e

o f

h e a l t h

mig!lt

ma te r i a l

-to

the

subs t an t ive i s sue a r i s ing unde r r egu la t . im

57(2).

The q m s t i o n of

hardship i s dea l t &th

as a rnstter

pe r t a in ing

t o

t h a t d i s c r e t i o n

but

t h a t

was

n o t

t h e e s s e n t i a l

considerat ion

re la t ion . t o it.

True

i t was,,as t h e T r i b u m l

po in ted

out

, t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s

a i r s a fe ty were paramount.

Rut

i f

the cur ren t

and

probable fu ture phys ica l

and

mental

hea.lth of'

the ' appe l lan t

were

such t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s

a i r

s a f e t y were

sa t i s . f i ed by

the imposi t ion

appropriate condi t ions

and

l i m i t a t i o n s i n r e s p e c t

any

l-icence

renewed, it wu3.d hive

been a hardship tha t a condi t iona l ' renewal shou1.d	have been
refused.

The

c r i t i c a l m a t t e r g o i n g

-to -the

d i s c r e t i o n

under

regula t ion

57' ( 2 ) was

accordingly the cu r ren t and

probable

f u t u r e h e a l t h

the

appellant.

And

it was

t o t h i s matter

' t h a t the evidence

of D r .

Evans was

c r i t i c a l .

Howe.ver,

t he ex ten t

t he appe l l an t ' S recovery

and

fu tu re hea l th p rospec t s

was

not considered

the Tribunal

he did not .

But t h e dec is ion -to proceed i n the

absence

D r .

Evans , €or whatever reason

, had been made i n Q f i . na l way,

a t a much earl-ier stage of Lhc hear ing and it i s reasonable to

bel ieve

t h a t n e i t h e r

t he

Tribwml nor

the

appel lan t would

t h a t ma-t-kr.

A s a

mat te r of.'

i n t e l l e c t u a l c h o i c e

the

questior:

pursu ing the

matter of c a l l i n g Dr. Evan:;

was

l e f t t o the

of the appel lan t i n the face of -the Tribunal. that might mean very

l i t t l e .

P a r t i c u l a r l y

was

t h i s pe r t inen t

because

r e f l ec t ing

l h g i c a l l y the view t h a t the

case f o r t h e appel lan t ~ o u l d

not

be advanced by evidence o f Dr. Evans along

the Lines sugges ted ,

ce r t a in obse lva t ions

t h e learned Pms idcn t were made

in tc>l-ms

which might; well have influenced

t h e appellant t o r e f r a i n

from

pursuing h i s d e s i r e that Dr.

Evans be

c a l l e d a s a

witness .

' .

It appears from t h e €orey!;o.i.ng tha t I am in gencral

agreement wi-LA t h e views exTres:;cd

i n t h i s matter by my

bro thers

Deane and F i she r t h a t as a matter of

r e a l i t y t h e r e

was

' . .

. .

.. .

' r.- .,-

AND :

CORAM :

hlilitsry

l?'o~.ces. 1Ie h a s a

djst . i .ngui .shed record of

m i l i t a r y

-2-

1.6 November

1976,

t h e appel lan t appl ied

the

Secretary of

the Department of Transport'

f o r t h e renewal of

the

S	.
i
I

provides that

the grant

l i cence sha l l no t

r e fused

except on one o r more of a number of spec i f ic p 'ounds

( the

re levant

one

be ing

f a i lu re

s a t i s fy

t o

prescr ibed

o r

spec i f i ed

requirement)

and

requi res tha t

the ground for

the

re fusa l ' o f

l icence (and the fac ts

o r

c i rcumstances const i tut ing

it)

furn ished

the

unsuccessfu

appl icant .

I t is

apparellt

t h a t , a p a r t

from

mat t e r s r e l a t ing to the appe l l an t

medi.cal

h i s to ry

and

standards,

tile

app1icatic)n

€or

renewal

of the

T h e appel lan t , being

aggrieved

t h e r e fusa l

t o

i s sue

t h e l i cences ,

d u l y app3.ied to

the Administrative Appeals

Tr ibunal ( " the Tr ibunal" ) for

review

the

decis ion

the

Del-egate.

The T r i b u n a l affirmed t h e dec is ion .

The appel.

l n n t

appea ls

t h i s Court. from t h a t decis ion of

the

Tribunal .

reason of the provis ions of s.44 of the Adrnjnistrxtivc Appeals

Tribunal Act,	1975,	t h e a p l ~ e l l n n t '	S appeal to this C o u r t is
W

l imi ted

t o quest ions of

l a w .

appl icant :for e i t h e r of

the two

re levant

l i ccnccs

is n o t

-3-

e l i g i b l e f o r t h e g r a n t

( w h i c h ,

b y

dcf ini t ion,

includes

renewal

Reg.

5 ( 1 ) ) of

such a

l iccncc unloss,

i n t e r al.i.a, he

s a t i s f i e s

the

Director-General

that

nlFtc?i;s thc "medical

standards"

adopted i n pursuance of

t he Chicago Convention

on In t e rna t iona l

C i v i l Aviation

and

n o t i f i e d b y

the Director-General

i n A i r

Navi g a t i n n

Orclcrs.

IneIigihi1.j.ty

consequent

upon

f a i l u r e

-_r

-__---

t o meet

those medical

stand:t~.*c!s i s not

cornplcte f o r a l l

purposes,

Regulation 57( 2 ) p rovides

tha t

i n such

circ1;mstances

the Director-General

(whose

powers

the Delegate

t h e Secretary

t h e

Department

was

exerc is ing)

m z ~ y g ran t

the re levant

l i cence

sub jec t

t o

the cond i t ion tha t

t he

holc le r

the

l icence

i s not

t o

such other

1i.mitatj.ons

"as

the Direc.~or--General

consic!crs

necessary

i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of

t he sa fe ty

ail- navigation

having regard to

t h e appl.icant ' S experience

and

a b i l i t y

and

t o . .

t h e nature

and

ex ten t

1 1 i S f a i l u r e t o meet

those medical

s tandards" .

By paragraph

2 . 3 of

S . 4 7 . 1 of

Ai.r

Navi.gation

Orders	the	"not i f ied"	mcd:ical	s tandards	inc lude	thc	requi re -
--

merit

t ha t " the app l i can t

shall

have

e s t ab l i shed r cd ica l

h i s tory or

c l in ic i i l

d iagnos is

. . .

( i ) a

psychosis".

T h i s

requirement

i s

s u b j e c t t o t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t

h is tory

acute toxic psychosis

need

not

regarded

as d isqual i fy ing

"provided

t h a t t h e

appl-icatut, has

suf fered n o perm;t!lent

impairlnent" .

The Tribunal h c n r d the matter

on 30 September 1977

and subscr!uently

published

i ts decis-i.on and reasons.

I t

found as -a f a c t

t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t

hacl ,

i-n

hhrch,

1976,

S:lffcrec!

p s y c h o t i c i l l n e s s

which

W;LS not

occasioned

b y

acute

toxj.Cj.l:Y.

The Tribunal held that, i n the 1i .ght of

that f i n d i n g , t h e

-4-

a p p e l l a n t h a d

establ ishcd

nwd:i.cal

h i s t o r y o r

c l i n i c a l

. I

d i a g n o s i s of

p s y c h o s i s o t h e r

than

acute

tox ic p s y c h o s i s

and

was n o t e l i g i b l e for t h e grant

the r e l e v a n t

l i c e n c e s .

T h e

T r i b t i n a l

f u r t h e r

h e l d

that

thcre was

"no

ground

f o r e x e r c j . s i n g "

t h e p o w e r

to , g r a n t

r e s t r i c t e d l icence U ~ ~ C I :

Regul a-Lion 57( 2)

b e i n g

u n d e r

d u t y

t o 2c.t

judic , ia l . ly ,

f a i l e d so

t o act

o r ,

t h e T r i b u n a l

d e n i e d

n a t u r a l

j u s - L i c e t o

t h e

a p p e l l a n t .

The

alleged

d e n i a l

n a t u r a l j u s t i ce

o r

f a i l u r e t o a c t j u d i c i a l l y

was,

i t was

s u b m i t t e d ,

t o

be found i n the f a i l . u r e of the

steps t o be ' t a k e n f o r a medical

witness, D r .

Larry E v a n s ,

t o

cai led

t o g i v e

o r a l evidence

o r

t o a l e r t t h e a p p e l l a n t

h i s r i g h t

t o a.pp1.y

f o r

a d j o u r n m n t

t o enable s u c h e v i d e n c e

t o

b e

c a l l e d .

A n

a l t e r n a t i v e

g r o u n d

a t t a c k was

t h a t the

T r i b u n a l ,

bei.ng

u n d e r

c iu ty

t o

c o n s i d e r

whether,

a l l t h e

.. -

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

l imited

I.ic.:?nccs

should

h a v e

i s s u e d

t o

t h e

appell.a.111;

p u r s u a n t

t o the

p r o v i s i o n s

R e g d l a t i o n

5 7 ( 2 ) ,

f a i l e d

p r o p e r l y

t o

d i r e c t

i t s a t t e n t i o n

t o

the

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

r e l e v a n t t o

the

d e t e r m i . n a t i o n

that

q u e s t i o n .

The medical

ev i .dcnce before

t h e T r i b u n a l

is t o be

-5-

mainly by Dr. Arden.

Dr. Ardcn and D r . Lxl*ry Evans a r e both

p s y c h i a t r i s t s who

examined

( a n d ,

i n the

case of

D r .

Arden,

t r e a t e d )

t h e , appe l l an t .

D r .

L3.M.

Jackson

i s ,

apparent ly ,

one of under the name "Queensland hkdical

group of

spec, inl . is t pathologis ts carrying

011 practicc?

L,aboratory".

D r .

Vhite

i s

consu l t an t p sych ia t r i s t .

whose

t t r epor t ' t cons i s t ed

l e t t e r s e t t i n g o u t

h i s 'r.iews

the

b a s i s of

wri t ten

ma te r i a l

w h i c h

had

been

placed

b e l o r e h i m .

occasion upon which

saw h i m .

The r epor t s

i nd ica t e

tha t

the

appel.lant

had,

i n D r .

A r d C i I ' S

opj -n ic ;~~,

had a psychotfc i l lness

b r i e f

dura t ion some shol-l; time

p r i o r t o D r .

Arden ' s

fi.rst

and D r .

A r d e n ' s opinion was based par t ly

upon

notes wr i t ten

the

doctor .who had admitted

t h e

appe l lan t

t o

h o s p i t a l , p a r t l y

upon

the appel lan t ' S own

account "of his esperiences" a n d

p a r t l y upon Dr. Arden ' S own

ohscrva t ion .

On 5 hjarch 197G a

pathol.ogy r epor t b y D r .

Jackson

indicat ing

that

amphetamine

thc

rc?sponsibi l i ty and

anxie t ies over

the safe ty

crews

ancl

himself over

this period".

The medical cxam.i.n:~t.ior~

records

i .ndicate

t h a t D r .

Arden saw t h e appel lan t on 8 XI:xch

1976 and t h a t , o n this

and t reatments which D r . Ardon thought

should be implemented

a r e

l i s t e d .

The

f i r s t was

"col.lect u r i n e for amphetamine

c?ss;?y".

F u r t h e r

t e s t s

were

ca r r i ed o u t .

Three separa te

addi t iona l

19'7G,

11 March

1976, a n d 16

E.!aI*ch 1.976 respec t ive ly d isc losed

I. -

D r .	A r d e n ' S	notes	f o r 1 2 March	1976 read	a s fo l lows:
?I

are

i n CL

r e a l

p r o b l e m u i t h

t h i s p a t i e n t ,

who

t o d a y

p r c u c n t s

c n n z ,

w i t 1 2

e v i d e n c e

p s y c h o s i s .

. .

-7 -

b r u i n inju1.y

f a c t o r s ,

.the

~rmrnomy i s n o t a v a i ZabZc

t o

c o n s c i o u s

t h o u g h t .

There is n o suggest ion i n D r . Arden' S notes ( o r indeed anywhere

e l s e

i n

the ev idecce)

tha t

t he

appe3.lant

was

c l i n i c a l l y

psychotic a t a n y time suhscc~uent

t o 8 >larch 1976.

The appel lan t xts discharged from h o s p i t a l in

!!arch,

1976.

D r .

A r d c n ' s

r epor t

out-pat ient

examinat ion

the appc'l-lant on

29 htsrch

1976 s t a t e s t h a t

the appel lan t "is

go ing sa t i s f ac to r i ly"

and

"shows no evidelice of

on-going

of 1 2 April 197G reports t h x t t h e r e

was "no evidence of

on-

going

psychotic

process".

O n 24 E k y 1976, however, D r . Arden

summarized t h e r e s u l t s

esnmination

a s fo l lows :

. .. -

"Going

r e a s o n a b l y

we 2 1 ,

a Z t h o u g l 1

d o e s

show

son:e

. e v i d e n c e

oi?goin<T paru i lo id

f a n i ' a s i e s ;

wotlld

cZars

. these

u s

b c i n g oucp-vuZued

i d e c i s ,

r a t h e r

thcrr:

d e Z u s i o n s ,

and

w o u l d

n o t

r e g a r d

t h e s e a s

p s ~ ~ c h o t i c

p e r s e .

t ~ o u l d

f e e 2,

however

t h a t this is

c;?

C n d z c -

a t i o n

t h a t

t h e

man

is n o t y e t o u t of

t h e L I O O ~ ; ~ ~ " .

The l a s t three r e p o r t s of

Dr.

Arden' S

esaminati .ons

indicate

"going

reasonab1.y

wellt1, "go ing sa t i s f ac to r i ly"

a.nd

"going

August

1976 s t a t e s :

-8-

''Cap$.

S u l l i u a n

i n f o r r n c d

t o d a y

t h a t

h e

h a s ~

t a k e n any

L a ~ ~ ~ g a e t i

for

a p p r o x i m a t e l y s e v e n

t ~ e e k s ,

and

t h a t h e

i s d o i n g

t h i s

i n t h e

k n o w l e d g e

t h a t

hac

c l e a r

in s t ruc i? -oF!s t o c o n t i n u e

t o -bake

L a i i g a c t i l ,

a n d

a l s o

i i z

t h e

k n o w l e d g e

t h a t

h a s

h a d

c l c a r a d v i c e

that h e may

w e l l

making

himse lf

l i a b l e t o	a	recurylence	of	h i s e a r l i e r p s y c h o t i c
i2Zl.ress.

Dr.

Arr l en ' s

l a s t r e p o r t was

i n r e s p e c t

a n

e x a m i n a t i o n

t h e a p p e l l a n t on

O c t o b e r

1976 and

r e c o r d s :

''I* W O U Z ~

a p p e a r

t h a t

t h i s

man

i s g o i n g r e a s o n a S l y

e n o u g h ,

t o

j u d g e

from

t h e

i y l f o r x a t i o n

a v a i l a b l e .

C a p t .

S u l l i v a t z

r e p o r t s

t h a t

h e

h a s

f e l t

r e n e w e d

i n t e r e s t i x h i s

u o r k

sirlee

a t t e n d i n g

C O U P S C S .

t a k i n g a n y

d r u g s ,

a l t houg3:

has

been

inst-rducked

t o do

s o " .

and

" h a s b e e n

i n s t r u c t e d " p e r h a p s

i n d i c a t e

v i e w

tha t

m i l . i t a r y

o f f i c e r

i s

u n d e r

d u t y

t o

i n g e s t w h a t e v e r

d r u g s

h i s m e d i c a l

a d v i s e r may

see

fi-t t o prescr ibe.

, I

A s has b e e n

m c n t i o n e d ,

Dr.

Arden's

w r i t t e n

repor t s

express

b o t h

the

c o n c l u s i o n

t ha t

the

a p p e l l a n t h a d ,

s h o r t l y

, , before he saw him

on 3 XIarch 1976, h a d a psychot ic i l l n e s s of

brief

d u r a t i o n a n d the

d i n g n o s i s t h a t the

a p p e l l a n t was,

when

Dr. Arden esnrni-ned him on 8 AItLych

1.976,

c 1 . i n i . c a l l y

p s y c h o t i c .

The

r e p o r t s

t h e m s c l v e s ,

i f

a c c e p t e d ,

set

f o r t h

a n d

e s t a b l i s h

h i s t o r y of

p s y c h o s i s .

They

a l s o estxl:,lish

h i s t o r y of

h a v i n g taken

amphetamine w h i c h ,

i f correct ,

would

raise

q u e r y

w h e t h e r

t h e h i s t o r y o f

p s y c h o s i s w u s

!'a

h i s t o r y

a c u t e t o x i c

-9-

psychosis" f o r t h e purposes of

the q.ua1if icat ion

paragraph

2 . 3 of

S. 47.1 of

the A i r N a v i

.- - gat

.- -

ion

Ordcrs

-- (sed above) . Apart

from

t h e power

t o i s s u e

licences

s u b j e c t

t o l i m i t a t i o n s

con-

t a ined

i n Regulation

5 7 ( 2 ) and

t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n

i n r e l a t i o n

t o .acute

toxic psychosis,

D r .

Arden

repor t s ,

i f acccptcc l ,

meant

tha t

tho appel lant

was

n o t e l i g i b l e t o

granted

the

l i cences fo r

w h i c h

h e

had

;;pplied.

I n

s o

f a r as

the quest ion whe-ther

icences subject

t o

l imi ta t ions should

g ~ z t ~ l t c d

t o

the

appe l l an t pu r suan t t o

Regulation 57( 2 ) is concerned,

the e x t r a c t from D r .

Arden's

r epor t of

12 March

1976 17ias

c.xtrerr~e1.y r e l evan t :

" I f

t h i s is

the case , there is no guarantee

tha t

t h i s will

not happen aga in ,

and

f e e l t h a t t h e man

shou1.d n o t

f l y

an aeroplane".

I t has

been seen t h a t the postula.Lcd

contingency

was

t h a t

t h e ,zpyel.lant

had Lz'ken amphctamine

and

repressed the

memory of so doing:

the e v e n t whicc' could not

1)s guaranteed as not being going

t o happen

again

was the appe1Ixnt S t ak ing amphetamine and

again

repressing

t h e memory.

I n f a c t ,

i t was

ult imately

found

(and

now

comvon- ground) tha t the appel lan t

had

nei ther

reprcssed n o r , l o s t any memory

having take9 amphetamine

f o r

. .

. *

t h e

s i m p l e

reason

that

h e had

not

taken

the

drug.

D r .

Jackson ' s

fou r s epa ra t e r epor t s

showing

t h e presence

amphetamine

i n

different

samples

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s u r i n e were

a l l wrong.

T h e

explanation

was,

apparently

"a techllic;Ll

error".

I n so f a r

a s

D r .

Arden ' s

repor t s es tab l i sh

tha t

the appellant had

a "hi.story"

taking

amphetamine or had r ep rcs sed o r l o s t

the memory

having so done, :;hey,

a l s o , were simp1.y wrong.

D r .

L a r r y Evans examined

the sppc l lan t

o n e occas-

. *

ion o n l y .

That was on 18 January 1977.

His report

indi .cates

t h a t ,

"the

histo?:y

h a s

bccn

o b t a i n c d

from

t he o f f i ce r h imse l f ,

scputiny

the medi cal. c ! ~ ~ u m o n t s "

(presumably incl-~iding D r .

Ardcn' S

r epor t s ) "and

from

the U n i t hlzdical

Officer".

D r .

Evans'

conclusion

was that the appe11ant had " s u f f e r e d from

a schizophreniform reaction

of the

type occasionall.y

seen

i n rni.l.i.tax-y personnel

who have been

under

se r ious phys ica l

a n d psychological stress" ~ n t l

that the reac t ion

had "occurred

a s a resu1.t

extreme stress, sleep depr iva t ion , a n d poor

"has rnadc

a s a t i s f a c t o r y response to

treatment a n d nov;

shows

no evidence of any residual. symptoms".

Subject.

to some blood

t e s t s ,

his

recommendatio~~s

t o

t h e

appropr ia te mi l i ta ry au th-

o r i t i e s were :

" l .

Rev iew

mcdicaZ

ca tegory

t o P282

Fe.

2 .	T h a t	h e	is	n o t f i t to	p a s s	a	m i Z i t a r y a i r c r e w
--

m e d i c a l

i n vi.ew of

t h e

p a r t i c u l a r

a n d

p e c u Z i a r

s t r e s s e s

which

m i 2 i t c i ~ y

p i Z o t s m i g h t

r e q u i r e d

t o f a c e

d u r i n g

thsi lq . d u t i e s .

- .

3 .

c e a s e

m e d i c a k i o n

(he

has

a l ready

done

s o ) ' I .

The f irst of thesct

recom~nc?ncl;~t

i o n s amounted

t o a

reconmcntlnt ion

a n upgrad ing of

the appcll .ant ' S

then medical category.

The

t h i r d may

w e l l ,

w i t h j u . s t i f i . ca t ion , h a v e been

seen

t h e

appe1.1ant as

vindicnt ion

h i s r c z u s a l to fo l low

D r .

. .

-11-

any residual synlpton~s'~,

D r . Evans was intending t o draw a

. f

d i s t i n c t i o n

between

t h e appel.1.ant

f i t n e s s t o

f l y m i l i t a r y

a i r c r a f t

and

his

fitness t o .Cly

c i v i l a i r c r a f t .

D r .

\\ 'hite hac1 n o t ,

a t least; a t the

time

h e wrote

appel lant

t t c o u l d not be

g r ; tn t ed

any

form

p i l . o t ' S

l i cence" .

I n t he conclusion of

l i g h t

t h e p ~ o v i s i o n s

Regul-ntion 5 7 ( 2 ) , D r . Yihite's

t h e e f f e c t

o f

t h e 1.cgal. requirements was,

l i k e

s o much

else

the medical

l ' e p o r t s r e l a t i n g t o the

a p p e l l a n t ,

IIowe?)er, a

c o m p l i c a t i o n

c r i s e s

i n

t h a t i t

m i g h t . be ~ ~ g u e d

that

had

t o x i c p s y c h o s i s

w h i c h

wouZd

e n t i t l e

him

t o f u r l t h e r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

- 2 2 -

A s has

been

sai .d, a l l of

the abovementioned

medical

reports were,

w i t h

the

appellant's

consent,

admitted

i n t o

evi..dcnce a t t h e

commencement

the hearing

before. t he T r i b u n a l .

Analysis

t he con ten t s

the repor t s

ind i .ca te

t h a t

D r .

Ardcn,

D r . E v a n s and D r . Vlhi tc a3 .1 . cxpresscd

t h e view that. thc

appel lant

had

llad

psychot ic

i l . lness .

The

reports

themselves

document,

i n respec t of the

appel lan t ,

a n

e s t ab l i shed

h i s t o r y

a psychosis.

t h e i r face ,

once i t is known t h a t

t h e

appel lan t had llot taken ampl~etamine, they

are,

however,

ca lcu la ted t o r a i s e some

questions.

I t would seem t h a t D r .

White's and D r . Evans'

concl.usion

that

thc appel.lant had had

a schizophreniforq. reaction

was

l a rge ly based on D r . Arden' S

r e p o r t s .

Dr.

White ' S

repor t

i n d i c x t e s

t h a t

h i s i n t e r p r e t a t -

i n g from an anlphetaminc psychosis which i s we11 known t o mimic

schizophrcnia".

The conbtant

s t ress ing

i n D r .

Arden's

notes

ar.d

records of - i f I might

use

t h e phrase

t h e

s p u r i o u s

amphetnmitie

'connection

invi ted ques t ions

t o the p a r t

which

h i s b e l i e f

t h a t	t h e appcl lan t had	bec?n	t a k i n g the drug played	i n his
* e

1111;

ima.tc diagnosis

p sycho t i c i l l nes s .

-1 3-

I n so f a r as the question whcther

the appel lan t :;hould

be granted limited licences pursuant

t o Regulation 5 7 ( 2 j !cas

shoul-d n o t f1.y an aerop1.ane.

T h i s view had however, in c1.ea.r

terms,

been

r e l a t e d

b y Dj*.

A r c l o n

t o the

conclusion

that

the

amphetamine , D r .

White

d i d not

s t a t e a n y express view oil

the

question whethcr a l'iccnce pursuant to

Reg1.11.atj.on 57( 2 ) shou! d

be issued to 1 . h ~

appel- laut .

I1i.s

report

i n d i c a t e s

t h a t ,

p o s s i b l y :ts

r c s u l t

fari l u r e to adve r t t o the provis ions

Regulation

5 7 ( 2 ) , h e sirnp1.y d i d no t address his mind t o

that quest- ion.

A s has bcen

seen ,

the

ca re fu l words which

D r .

Evans used

to expres s

hi.s v icw t h a t

the appel lan t

s h o u l d not

f l y lnil.itary a i r c r a f t were , zt

worst from the appell.ant ' S

po in t of	view,	neut ra l on	the question whether	he	was	f i t t o
. .

f l y c i v i l a i r c r a f t .

t h e other

hand,

the

view expressed in

t h e penultimate paragraph

the e x t r a c t

f r o l n D r .

U'hite' S

repor t

which

is set o u t above,

that

.the appel lan t "had

devel-oped

schizophrenia . . . and t11i.s coulcl

~ happen

again" (underl ining

added), was

c l e a r l y

c ,onsi .dctrnble s ign i f icance

t h e qucst:ion

whether

the

appel.lant

shou ld

g ran ted r e s t r i c t ed l i cences

pursuant

t o Rcgulation

5 7 ( 2 ) .

14-

which h e pressed his appe:tl.

iden t i f i ed

these

as fo l lows:

m i l i t a r y a i r c r a f t

and

stnnd;t~.d..; f o r

f l y i n g c i v i l a i r c r n f

t .

he had received from D r . A~.cicn, thxt he had discontinued the

course of treatment prcscrj.lsc?d b y D r . Arden because he d i d

not

t h i n k t h a t the

treatmcr~t; was

necessary

and

t h a t his

i n t e r -

views n i t h D r .

Ardkn had bcc:il

t e rmina ted

a t

h i s request.

s t a t e d tha t

accep-Led Dr.

7<vms' r e p o r t as " a f a i r assessment

the

s i tua t ion" and , re fer r i l s?

t o D r .

E v a n s '

report, ad.ded:

-15-

The

t r a n s c r i p t

c o n t i n u e s :

. I

IiIS	llOhlOUR:	llave	y o u	b e e n	i n	t o u c h w i t h D r .	Evans ,
Mr.	I S u Z l i v a n ?

MR.

SULLIVAN:

I n t h e a b s e n c e of

Dr. Evans

t he

onZy

uay

Can

s u b s t a n z i a t e

t h a t

c Z a i m

i s by

d i r c c t i t z g

que: ; t io?zs t o D r .

A r d e n

o r

CoZone Z

f l ( zugh ta t ; " .

t h a t :

I t s h o u l d be	n o t e d t11a.t the	t ' c l a l ~ n t t	o r g r o u n d	refcrred	t o
J

wou ld	appear	t o have	been	r e l a t e d	t o the	q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r	the
sense .

Two

w i t n e s s e s

(Dr. A r c k n

a n d

Colonel Alichael

Naugll-ion) were

ca l led t o g i v e o r a l .

e v i d e n c e o n b e h a l f

the

s h o r t l y before Ill-. Arden

f i r s t saw h i m .

Ur. A r d e n ,

i n

h i s

i n

c v i d c n c e .

I I e

c l e a r l y

r e l i e d

u p o n

them

f o r much of his re-

whole

q u e s t i o n of

amphe tamine

h a s b e e n

v e r y u n p l e a s a n t

r e d

h e r r i n k

c a u s e d

b y

l a b o r a t o r y e r r o r " .

descr ibed

t h e

s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h

t h e a p p e l l a n t had

b e e n

p l a c e d :

" u n d o u b t e d l y

t h i n k

i t

i n t e n s e l y 1 - ~ a s o n , z b l e

t o

g e t

v e r y

a n g r y

a n d

ag i ta . ted

i f

you

are

u n j u s - t l y

a c c u s e d

t a k i n g d r u g s ,

t a k i n g

n m p h e t n m i n c ,

because

u n d c r s t a n d i n g is

t h a t t h i s

would

g r o s s l y

i m p r o p e r

. .

-1%

behaviour f o r a p i l o t " .

t r u t h , thcse

remarks

of D r . Arden

understate

the appell ant S predicament : the appellant was

subjected i n the course

of. h j S recent flood r e l i e f work in

assessing the coml~inatioll of circulw3tances in the context of which the appel:l.ant was c?in:i.~:;tll.y diagnosed by D r . Ardcn as

psyc1~ot.i.c.

t h i s regard, that predicalnent was relevant

t o

the question whether

thcrc?

was any real

l i l te l ihood

t h a t

t he .appel l .ant ,

i f s u b j e c t e d

t o those

stresses

which

the

holder of a colnnlercial p i l o t ' s l icence o r a radiotelephone

operat'or I S l icence could

be c;spccted t o encounter, would

again become psychotic.

A reading of the whole of the

t rnnscr ipt

of the proceedings be fo re t,hc Tr ibunn .1 tends t o give the impress-

ion t h a t the appel. lant saw

t l ~ e

oral evidence

which he had hoped

to obtain

from Dr.

Evans

1)eing relevant

the

.assessnlent

whether

there

was any such 3 ikelihood.

D r . Evans was the o n l y

medical expert

who had ex:unini?d the appell.ant w i t h i n the eI.C.vCii

months preceding

the

hearj.ng of the applicntion t o the 'l'ri1~un:il..

-18-

i l l n e s s a.t

all.

. .-

I have set o u t the relevant background

f a c t s and

circuptancx?s i n cons iderable

de ta i l

f o r

two

reasons.

T h e

first is tha-t the appellant

I S- claim

that the Tribunal

was

i n

breach

i t s d u t y t o act

judj .c ia1ly

b y reason of

i t s fai.1.u~-e

either t o adjourn the matter of i t s own nlotion o r t o alert

a c c e p t a n c e of

t h a t was

a l l b u t

i n e v i t a b l e ) ,

t h e o n l y r ea l

Rcgu l a t i o n

57( 2 > .

S e c t ion

T r i b u n a l

g i v e n

reasonable

o p p o r t u n i t y

t o p r e s e n t

11i.s.

. .. I

case".

I n

d e a l i n g with

a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r

r e v i e w ,

t h e T r i b u n a ?

is p l a i n l y under

d u t y t o a c t

j u d i c i a l l y ,

tha t

is t o s a y ,

with

j u d i c i a l

f a i r n e s s and

detxchment.

I n these

c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

able o p p o r t u n i t y

t o present

hi:;

cxse

c o n s t i t u t e s s t a t u t o r y

-20-

requircmcnts of

na tura l j u q +

L c.i.ce which it is obliged t o obscrve

(sec I

R .

v .

Xloodic,

(1.977) 17 A . L . R .

219 a t p .

2 2 5 ) .

I f , i n

a l l

the cj . rcumstmccs,

the

fai lure

t he Tribunal. t o adjourn

the matter

t o enable D r . E v n n s t o be

c a l l e d a s

a witness o r t o

a l e r t the

; tppel . lant of

h i s r i g h t t o a p p l y f o r such

adjourn-.

Sec t ion 3 3 ( 1 . ) ( b )

the

Act

requires

t h a t

t h e '

the reyuirelilcnts of the Act

a n d of

every other relevant enact-.

ment and a proper consideration

of the matters before t h e

Tribmal

permit .

I t

i s apparent

tha t

the

ob jec t ives

expedition and of lack of formality o r technical. i ty and t h e

requi.rements of

f a i r n e s s \ v i 1 1 o rd ina r i ly be

best

a.rhievcci by

a ready

i d e r l t i f i c a t ion of

the issues

which

are ,

t r u t h , in

dispute between

t h e p a r t i e s

par t icu lar appl ica t ion

for

review.

the

ordinary

case,

t r i buna l which

is u n d e r

d u t y

t o a c t j u d i c i a l l y

and

which

has

the relevant

p a r l i e s

before i t will be best advised t o be guided by

the p a r t i e s in

ident i fying thc i ssues and

t o pcrmi.t the parties to present

-21-

f a i l u r e t o g i v e

p a r t y

t o p r o c e e d i n g s

the

o p p o r t u n i t y

a d e q u a t e l y

p . r c s e n t j . n g

his

c a s e .

t h e

T r i h u n a . 1

h a d ,

the

as a

witness,

tha t r e f u s a l nwy

\vel1 have

c o n s t i t u t e d s u c h

f a i l u r e .

s u c h

a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r

a n

ad jou rnmen t

was,

however ,

made.

If i t h3.d' b-een made, it. is high?

57 probab le

t h a t

the

Tr ibunx l

wou

have

acceded

t o i t :

i n d e e d ,

C o u n s e l

who

* *

a p p e a r e d

f o r

t h e a p p e l l a n t

s t a t c d

t h s t

d i d n o t d i s p u t e

t h a t , i f

the

a p p e l l a n t

h a d

a p p l i e d

f o r

a n

a d j o u r n m e n t ,

t h e

T r i b u n a l

w o u l d

h a v e

g r a n t e d

i t .

The

absence

a n y

a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r

a d j o u r n ~ r ~ e n t

d o e s

n o t ,

h o w e v e r ,

n e c e s s a r i l - y

c o n c l u d e

t h e

i s s u e a d v e r s e l y

t o

t h e a p p c l l a n t .

T h e

f a i l u r e O P

t r i b u n a l which

is under

d u t y t o ac t judicially

t o a d j o u r n a

rnattcr

may,

c o n c e i v a b l y ,

c o n s t i t u t e

f n . i I . n r c t o a l l o w

p a r t y

the

o p p o r t u n i t y of

propcr1.y p re sen t ing h i s casc

even

t h o u g h

the

p a r t y i n

questj on

h a s

not

exprcs s ' l y

s o u g h t

n d j n ~ ~ r n m e n t

( s e e

-22-

t h e

e v i d e n c e ,

t o a d d u c e

m y further

e v i d e n c e o r o t h e r mateyinl

a n d of

t h e

c o m p l e t e

absence of

al ly

ind icxLj . .on by

the

appel lant

of	natural. j u s t i c e .
f 01	lows :

- 2 4 -

The

Regulation adopts distinct

and

contrast ing

approaches t o t he e f f ec t

fai.1ur.c to m e c t the no-Lified

l icence”) is concerned

fail-ure 1.0 meet t,hose

standards j.s

conclusive against

a grant and i t mattcrs not

that t he f a i lu rc

i s , f o r examp1.e

t h e

r e s u l t

of some long past

his tory

of a

psychotic disturbance

which has been shown t o be devoid of

r e s idua l

e f f ec t

o r likeli.hood of

recurrence.

The

f a i l u r e t o

meet

the

s t a n d a r d s

i n

i t k e l f c o n s t i t u t e s

mandatory

i n c l i g i b i l i t y .

Fa i lu re

t o

meet

those standards does not

i n i t s e l f ,

c o n s t i t u t e

i n e l i g i b i l i t y fo r t he

g r a n t of

condi t iona l

licence pursuant

t o Regul.atio1-l 57( 2 ) .

the conl.rary

such a

f a i l u r e i s i n

i t s e l f

t h e full‘ilmcnt of

the

c o ~ ~ t l i t i o n

1)rcceclent to the

opcrxt ion of

the sub-l’)Lef;ulation. . T h e qucs t ion whether

t11Fj1’e

-25-

Regula t ion

5 7 ( 2 )

cioes

not

s p e c i f y

t h e

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

' .

avo id

t h a t

p r e j u d i c e .

I n such

case

t h e answer

t o t h e q u e s t i o n

w h e t h e r

c o n d i t i o n a l

l i c e n c e s h o u l d

g r a n t e d

p u r s u a n t

t o

R e g u l a t i o n

57( 2 )

will.

s t r a i ghtforwa::d

w i t h o u t

ally

n e e d

f o r

t h e pTccise

. a i ; scss rncnt

the c f f e c t of

the i - e l e v a n t

f a i l u r e

t o comply wl:ith medical . staniiards o r of

the e f f ec t which. possible

a d d i t i o n a l

1 i m i t a . t i o n s upon

1,h.e

l icence nligllt

have.

I n

the

o r d i n a r y C R S ~

l zov~cvc~ ' ,

as thc

refc-rences in

R c g u l x t i o n S'[(

2 )

a n d ,

as a t 8 J a n u a r y 19'77, "sho::,ed

110 cv idcccc

o f

a n y

residual

r e p o r t

a t l eas t

l e a v e s open

t h e p o s s i b i I i t y t!lat

Dr. E v a n s '

opi.nion was

that

thc appe1, l ;~: ; t was

fit

f o r c i . v i l ,

d i s t i n c t

from

m i l i t a r y ,

aircrew dutie::.

The

a . p p e I l n n t ' s c o m m e n t s

t o

f a c t , Ill-.

E v a n s '

opinion.

regard

t o c o s s i d c r a t i o n s

the

s a f e t y of

air

n a v i g a t i o n ,

-28-

submission,

the

r c a s o n a b l e n e ~ ~ ; o r

p r o p r i e t y

t h a t

a p p r o a c h

-29-

1	I1nt t	hc	t o f l y c i v i l
A .	Yes".

-31-

m i n a t i o n

i t .

. l

- 3 3-

-31-

. ..

* .

3 .

must

r e l e v a n t where

the.

d i s q u a l i f y i n g i l l n e s s

extended

over

a period of o n l y a few days.

B u t

f o x

c e r t a i n

stal;ui..ory p r o v i s i o n s t o which

refer

8 .

[1978] FCA 48

28 Jun 1978