JUDGMENT No. hdl 22, IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. VG 83 of 1985 ) GENERAL DIVISTON ) Between: LAKSHMI PATEL Applicant and A.B. LUCKMAN (as the Collector of Customs, Victoria) Respondent THE COURT: Sweeney J. DATE : 14 October 1985 PLACE : Melbourne EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter the applicant seeks to have judicial review of the decision of the respondent to refuse to authorise delivery of a motor car to the applicant which was seized by the respondent on 7 December 1984. The guestion turns on the interpretation of schedule 2(f) of the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977, and that reads, under the heading: "Schedule 2, Classes of decisions that are not decisions to which section 13 applies: "(f) decisions in connection with the institution or 2. conduct of proceedings in a civil court including decisions that relate to, or may result in, the bringing of such proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties arising from contraventions of enactments, and o in particular -". In the Schedule there are then set out four sets of particulars. As the matter now stands in addition to the material that was previously before me there is an affidavit which has been sworn today by a senior investigations officer of the Customs Department, Mr John Hodges, reterring to the notice which was given on 20 August 1985. He deposes to the fact that he recommended to the respondent that he retain the vehicle in question so 1t could be used as evidence in proceedings against Mr. J. Schelling, the importer of the car, pursuant to Part 14 of the Customs Act, 1901. He is informed by the respondent and verily believes that this recommendation was accepted by him. I might add that the conduct of this case makes it plain indeed that that recommendation has been acted upon. He goes on to say: "I am informed by the Respondent and verily believe that the Comptroller-General of Customs intends to commence proceedings against Mr. J. Schelling for the recovery of pecuniary penalties, by the end of this year. I[t will be alleged that a number of breaches of the Customs Act have been committed by the said Mr. Schelling. Amongst these allegations will be claims that the vehicle in question in the present proceedings was smuggled into Australia. Also allegations of evasion of duty, false entry and producing a false invoice will be made during the course of these proceedings. Iam informed by the respondent herein and verily believe that the vehicle referred to in these proceedings 1s required by himas evidence for the abovementioned intended prosecutions of Mr. J. Schelling." The words "decisions in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court" cover proceedings of this character. The proceedings are proceedings in a civil court, and the words "decisions in connection with" are very wide indeed, and I am satisfied on the evidence presently before the court that the decision in question 1s in connection with the institution or conduct of proceedings in a civil court. It is not necessary, 1n my opinion, for the court to have before 1t some precise and detailed account of the nature and likely course of those proceedings, including in that account all the permutations and combinations that may flow from the way in which the case develops and the manner in which the defence 15 conducted. It 1s sufficient, in my opinion, to have such particulars as are presently available to the court, and the decision to retain possession of the motor car 1s one which is, in my opinion, quite closely connected with the institution or conduct of proceedings. It would be one of the first matters which an intending prosecutor or an intending applicant in relation to those proceedings would consider, so as to decide whether he should retain in his own possession what may very well be regarded as the best evidence in relation to at least some of the issues which are likely to arise zn such a= proceeding. Accordingly, Ido not think that the applicant is entitled to the relief that is sought, namely the receipt of a statement pursuant to s.13. I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Honourable Mr. Justice Sweeney. Dated: 14 October 1985 eee ee ee a D Associate I certify that the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Honourable Mr. Justice Sweeney. Dated: 14 October 1985