Sullivan v Department of Transport

[1978] FCA 48

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 Of 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 of

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

a radiotelephone operator l icence". The appl icant i s r e fe r r ed

E

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 of 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

of 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 in these reasons .

, The grounds of appea l appear ing in 'the appel lan t 's

no t i ce of appeal included the following:- . , i

"l. The said decis ion appealed from - .

( a )	was wrong i n law;
( b )	was agains't the evidence and the weight

of evidence.

2. The sa id Tr ibuna l shou ld a t i t s hear ing on the

30th day of September. 1977 - I

( 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 of c a l l i n g

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

3. 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 of h i s rig1'i.t hereinbelore

r e f e r r e d t o -

each cons t i tu ted 2. 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 a. 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 of the

p l a i n t i f f end cons- t i tuted an c'r 'ror of law.

5, 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 an 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 a psychosis ;

(b ) t he re was no ground t o g r a n t a 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 * *

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

re€usa l of 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

of 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 by 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 57 of the

-- A i r Nayip t ion Regula t ions ( the Regulations). So f a r as mater ia l

a t h a t regula t ion reads :-

"57 . - (l) Subject t o t h i s regula t ion , an appl icant

for a 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 -

5

By Pma. 2.3 of S . 47.1 o€ the A f r Navigatj -_I 03 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 no 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 be

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 on one or more grounds

spec i f ied there in . So 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 a l i cence or c e r t i f i c a t e except o n one o r

mOre of 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 by 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 a s t a t emen t t ha t was f a l s e o r

mi s l ead ing in a material par t icu lar . I l

Regulation 2 5 5 ( 2 ) provides as 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 do 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 in a 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 of r e p l a t i o n 5 7 ( 2 ) thc

fai1.u~-e of 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 of 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 of 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.^ a 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 of r egu la t ion 255(2 j

tend to preclude the Director--General f rom making clear to an

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 be 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 no 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 .

It appears to me 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 we re no condi t ions o r l i m i t a t i o n s which it would be

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 . If 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 . On the

mater ia l before the Tr ibunal it d id not appear tha t the

appropriateness of a renewal pursuant -to r egu la t ion 5 7 ( 2 ) had

i n f a c t been considered. If it had it 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 a

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 of 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 of the Delegate 's s ta tement

of reasons or 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. In 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 8n

inappropr i a t e s i t ua t ion s o far as the o the r s are concerned.

- .

In view of 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 in 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 a 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 be p r a c t i c a l and reasonable , and f o r that purpose

examination of 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 1 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 of the evider ,ce that -the

appel-lant had an e s t ab l i shed h i . s t o r y o f psychosis it i s dii"Yicu1t

t o t h iuk t h a t he ever had any real. prospec t of 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 a

cond i t iona l remwal o f h i s l i cences . But as of ten happens vi th

a l i t i g a n t i n p e r s o n he 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 of t h e aspec t o f his c a s e t h a t becausl?

of h i s recovery he should have been granted a condi t iona l

renewal of 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 . He sa id he des i red t o have the evidence

of D r . Evans t o show t ha t , a l t hough Dr. Evans had considered he

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 of

c i v i l f l y i n g . The appel lan t in formed the Tr 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 be 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 on 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 of a 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 of

D r . Evans views c3.s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' S cur ren t and fu tu re s t a t e

of 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. In t h i s l a s t r e s p e c t -Lho nature o f the psychosis

placed on him by 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 : -

2. 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 of 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 ~ ~ a 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 a

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

of 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 a

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 it 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 im 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

or 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 of D r . Evans the only v;zy

I 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 in 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 , it

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 a Tribuna.1 wi1.1- exercise ini t ia-Live in such a 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

e view of 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 of t h e Tr ibunal? t h a t i n t h e l i g h t of

t he f ind ing tha t the appc11a.nt suf fe red a 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 by a’cute

‘ t o x i c i t y , lls.lt7.l of 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

4

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 of 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

be 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

.c

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 in 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 of 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 of a i r

s a f e t y were sa t i s . f i ed by the imposi t ion of 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 of 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 of 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 of t he appe l l an t ' S recovery and

fu tu re hea l th p rospec t s was not considered by the Tribunal

,

4

he did not . But t h e dec is ion -to proceed i n the absence of

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

of 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:

of 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 of 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 a

' . . . .

.. . . .

' r.- .,-

_L 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-

On 1.6 November 1976, t h e appel lan t appl ied to the

Secretary of the Department of Transport' f o r t h e renewal of the

S	.
i
I

provides that the grant of a- l i cence sha l l no t be r e fused

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

i

! re levant one be ing f a i lu re s a t i s fy t o X prescr ibed o r spec i f i ed

requirement) and requi res tha t the ground for the re fusa l ' o f

a l icence (and the fac ts o r c i rcumstances const i tut ing it)

be furn ished to the unsuccessfu l 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 Is medi.cal .

h i s to ry and standards, . tile app1icatic)n €or renewal of the

' T h e appel lan t , being aggrieved by 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 a review of the decis ion of 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 to t h i s Court. from t h a t decis ion of the Tribunal . BY

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 :

l

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 he 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 a 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 of t h e Secretary

of 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 of 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 of 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 of 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 no 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 of . . . ( 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 a h is tory of

..

acute toxic psychosis need not be 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!

a 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

L

-4-

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

be 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 of

'.

h i s r i g h t t o a.pp1.y f o r an 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 of 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 a c iu ty t o c o n s i d e r whether, in 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 of 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 of 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 a group of spec, inl . is t pathologis ts carrying 011 practicc?

L,aboratory". D r . Vhite

i s a 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 of a

l e t t e r s e t t i n g o u t h i s 'r.iews bn the b a s i s of wri t ten ma te r i a l

I

w h i c h had been placed b e l o r e h i m .

occasion upon which he 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

of 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 by

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 of 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

We 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 ac c n n z , w i t 1 2 no e v i d e n c e of

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 of an out-pat ient examinat ion of

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 of an 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 of oi?goin<T paru i lo id f a n i ' a s i e s ; I 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 I 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 . I 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 me t o d a y t h a t h e h a s ~ o t

t a k e n any L a ~ ~ ~ g a e t i 2 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 he

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 he 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 be 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 of a n e x a m i n a t i o n of

t h e a p p e l l a n t on 18 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: he 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 a v i e w tha t a m i l . i t a r y

o f f i c e r i s u n d e r a 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

a h i s t o r y of a p s y c h o s i s . They a l s o estxl:,lish a 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 a q u e r y

w h e t h e r t h e h i s t o r y o f a p s y c h o s i s w u s !'a h i s t o r y of 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 to 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 S 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 be 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 l icences subject

t o l imi ta t ions should be 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 I 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 is now comvon- ground) tha t the appel lan t had nei ther

reprcssed n o r , l o s t any memory of 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 of amphetamine i n

different samples of 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"

of taking amphetamine or had r ep rcs sed o r l o s t the memory of

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 on 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 of 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 of 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 be

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 . He 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

of 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 by t h e

appe1.1ant as a vindicnt ion oC 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 S 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 of p i l . o t ' S l i cence" .

I n t he conclusion of l i g h t of t h e p ~ o v i s i o n s of 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 in 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 ,

.

11 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 he had a 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 of the hearing before. t he T r i b u n a l .

Analysis of t he con ten t s of 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 a 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

of a psychosis. On 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 as 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 of a 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 a r c s u l t of a fari l u r e to adve r t t o the provis ions

of 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 . On t h e other hand, the view expressed in

t h e penultimate paragraph of 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 of c ,onsi .dctrnble s ign i f icance on t h e qucst:ion

whether the appel.lant shou ld be 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. He 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. He

s t a t e d tha t he accep-Led Dr. 7<vms' r e p o r t as " a f a i r assessment

of 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 I 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 of 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 a 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 " . He 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

,* I t h i n k i t is 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 of 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 my u n d c r s t a n d i n g is t h a t t h i s would be 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 " . In 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. In 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 as 1)eing relevant to the .assessnlent of
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 of 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 39 of

T r i b u n a l is g i v e n a 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 an 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 a 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 ,

c

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 of 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 an adjourn-.

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

i

Tribmal permit . I t i s apparent tha t the ob jec t ives of

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 , in t r u t h , in

dispute between t h e p a r t i e s in a par t icu lar appl ica t ion for

review. In the ordinary case, a t r i buna l which is u n d e r a

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 a 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 of

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 . If t h e T r i h u n a . 1 h a d , in 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 a

f a i l u r e . No 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 ld 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 he 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 of a n y a p p l i c a t i o n

f o r an 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 a

t r i b u n a l which is under a 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 a f n . i I . n r c t o a l l o w a 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 an 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 of 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 a condi t iona l licence pursuant

t o Regul.atio1-l 57( 2 ) . On 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 a 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 a c o n d i t i o n a l l i c e n c e s h o u l d be g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o

.. L.

R e g u l a t i o n 57( 2 ) will. be 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 of 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 , as 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

in 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 of 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 of 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 of i t .

. l

- 3 3-

-31-

c

. ..

* .

2.

,

3 .

must be 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 I refer

4

8 .