Woods, W.C. v Walsh, D.W. & Ors [1987] FCA 679

fe amma

CATCHWORODS

Administrative Law - Application to review the decision of a

magistrate in the course of committal proceedings - no grounds established which demonstrated that the magistrate failed to address the correct question of law - no failure to exercise jurisdiction sufficient to warrant review - observations with

respect to filing of ex officio indictment.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Crimes Act 1914 dustices Act 1902 (W.A.)

No. WAG 51 of 1987

WARREN CLIVE WOODS v. DAVID WILFORD WALSH, MALCOLM DAVID STEINBERG & IVAN HAROLD WILTSHIRE

FORSTER, J. PERTH 10 DECEMBER, 1987

Sea

rae

eonee way

ToT epee

at ' Sean

eer ger

CONES TO pe cinco

Gyale hn Oren

TO Zt.

he SOs a)

' t-

t .

oe ee

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT

No. WAG 51 of 1987

) ) ) ) REGISTRY ) ) )

GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN:

WARREN CLIVE WOODS

Applicant ~ and - DAVID WILFORD WALSH First Respondent - and -

MALCOLM DAVID STEINBERG

Second Respondent - and - IVAN HAROLD WILTSHIRE Third Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER FORSTER J.

ery

WHERE MADE PERTH

DATE OF ORDER 10 DECEMBER, 1987

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the second and third

respondents to be taxed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

f.

ashen vt

a AT PTA "om ' '

a is AT me ee eee

Len cere ereememrnt Ei . '

ras

reoegperer pre

TT

ace

nar

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT

REGISTRY No. WAG 51 of 1987

wwe ee ww

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: WARREN CLIVE WOODS

Applicant - and -

DAVID WILFORD WALSH

First Respondent - and -

MALCOLM DAVID STEINBERG

Second Respondent - and -

IVAN HAROLD WILTSHIRE

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM: Forster, J. :

This is an application to review the decision made by the first respondent David Wilford Walsh, a stipendiary magistrate ("the magistrate") in the course of proceedings being a preliminary hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Justices Act 1902 (W.A.) in respect of complaints for indictable offences contrary to the Crimes Act 1914. The second respondent Maicolm David Steinberg ("Steinberg") and the third respondent Ivan Harold Wiltshire ("Wiltshire") had each been charged by the