Despoja, Mario Sime v Durack, Peter Drew [1979] FCA 118

CATCHWORDS

°

Statutes Interpretation - "External Affairs" Constitution section 51(xxix) Commonwealth

Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978.

Courts, Practice §& Procedure

Judicial power exercised by order not administrative act.

Mario Sime Despoja

v.

Peter Drew Durack

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia No. FC 30 of 79 Before Blackburn, St.John and Northrop JJ

Canberra 13 November 1979

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

) ) } No. FC 30 of 1979 ) ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN

MARIO SIME DESPOJA

Appellant (Respondent)

and

PETER DREW DURACK ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent (Applicant) ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER : Blackburn, St.John and Northrop JJ DATE OF ORDER : 13 November 1979 WHERE MADE : Canberra THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The order of the Court below be varied by adding the

following paragraph after that numbered 2:

"Such warrant shall authorize entry if necessary by force onto and into the said premises at any time of the day or night for the purpose of removing or obliterating such sign, flag or insignia and shall remain in force for six months."

but otherwise be affirmed.

2. Appellant pay the respondent's costs to be taxed.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. FC 30 of 1979

DISTRICT REGISTRY

et et

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN

MARIO SIME DESPOJA

Appellant (Respondent)

and

PETER DREW DURACK ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent (Applicant)

Blackburn J.

St. John J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 13 November 1979

Northrop J.

This is an appeal from an order made by the Federal Court constituted by a single Judge restraining the appellant from engaging or attempting to engage in conduct described in the order and being conduct within s.4, Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978, hereinafter called "the Act'', and from an order that a warrant 18SUe under s.5 of the Act. The facts are not in dispute. In November 1977 the appellant established what purported to be a Croatian