Moss, T.E. v. Brown, B.R. & Anor [1983] FCA 40

CcCATCHWORDS

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - objection to competency - whether decision of committing magistrate that a prima facie case of conspiracy_under_the Crimes Act (Commonwealth) exists is reviewable - whether decision of an administration character - whether decision made

under an enactment of Commonwealth.

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977

JUDICIARY ACT 1903

JUSTICES ACT (N.S.W.) 1902

N.S.W. G.250 of 1982

THOMAS ERVIN MOSS v. BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN and PETER LAMB

St. John, J. Sydney

17 March 1983

ee Ae re ee ene war anne --

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

No. G.250 of 1982

' BETWEEN: THOMAS ERVIN MOSS

Applicant

AND: BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN

First Respondent

PETER LAMB Second Respondent ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: ST. JOHN, J. DATE OF ORDERS: 17 MARCH 1983 WHERE MADE: AT SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The motion objecting to the competency of

this court is dismissed.

2. The second respondent is to pay the applicant's

costs of the motion.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

No. G.250 of 1982

BETWEEN: THOMAS ERVIN MOSS Applicant AND : BRUCE RAYMOND BROWN First Respondent PETER LAMB

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ST. JOHN, J.

17 MARCH 1983

AT SYDNEY

On the 31st March, 1978, the applicant, Thomas Exvin Moss, a medical practitioner, was charged on the information of the second respondent, Peter Lamb, with an offence under S.86(1)(e) of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. The committal proceedings were presided over by the first respondent, Bruce Raymond Brown,

Stipendary Magistrate, who, on the 29th November, 1982

2-2/2

a

held that the evidence adduced disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant of an offence of conspiracy under that section, but the number of persons with whom he was alleged to have conspired was reduced. On the 2nd December, 1982, counsel appearing for the applicant in those committal proceedings submitted to the first respondent that certain witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination and that the committal proceedings against the applicant be stayed. Both these applications were refused and, on the 20th December, 1982, application for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the Act") was filed in this court in respect to the following decisions or conduct of the first