Taciak A. v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police [1995] FCA 650

CATCHWORDS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Error of Law - Whether the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth) permitted the respondent to use lawfully obtained intercept information in deciding not to reappoint a member of the Australian Federal Police - not a purpose "connected with" an "investigation" or "inquiry" - respondent not permitted to use the intercept information - construction of exceptions to statutory prohibition on infringement of privacy. WORDS AND PHRASES - Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth), s 5 "Permitted purpose" - "investigation", "inquiry", "connected with". Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss 5, 6. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B. Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth), ss 5 "permitted purpose", 67. Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth), s 26. Australian Federal Police Regulations (Cth), reg 5(1). Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280. Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Top Ten Promotions Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 39; [1969] 1 WLR 1163. Edelsten v Investigating Committee of New South Wales (1986) 7 NSWLR 222. R. v Edelsten (1990) 21 NSWLR 542. Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427. Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446. Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344. Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635. ALAN TACIAK v COMMISSIONER OF AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE NG 476 of 1995 Sackville J. Sydney 24 August, 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 476 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ALAN TACIAK Applicant AND: COMMISSIONER OF AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Respondent CORAM: SACKVILLE J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 24 AUGUST 1995 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The decision made by the respondent, on or about 20 June 1995, not to reappoint the applicant as a member of the Australian Federal Police, be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the respondent for determination in accordance with these reasons. 2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.