Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Priestley v Godwin [2008] FCA 835

MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v ANNWYN GODWIN PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER

ACD 1 of 2008 MICHAEL PRIESTLEY v THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ACD 2 OF 2008

STONE J

12 MAY 2008

CANBERRA IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 1 of 2008

BETWEEN: MICHAEL PRIESTLEY

Applicant

AND: ANNWYN GODWIN, PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONER

Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 2 of 2008

BETWEEN: MICHAEL PRIESTLEY

Applicant

AND: THE HONOURABLE DAVID PETER MAXWELL HAWKER, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

First Respondent

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE ALAN BAIRD FERGUSON, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

Second Respondent

JUDGE: STONE J

DATE: 12 MAY 2008

PLACE: CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In these two proceedings, both of which were commenced on 3 January 2008, the applicant, Mr Priestley, is seeking statements of reasons for, and the disclosure of evidence leading to, decisions of the respective respondents to make no further enquiry into certain allegations made by the applicant. These matters came before me for first directions on 6 February 2008. At that hearing the solicitor for the respondents sought extensions of time for the respondents to file and serve objections to competency in each proceeding although the time for filing any such objection had expired 14 days after Mr Priestley's application was served on them; O 54 r 4. 2 I granted the extensions of time sought over the objections of the applicant and gave the respondents until 13 February to file their respective notices. Those orders were in accordance with the short minutes of order submitted by the respondent with some minor amendments made in Court. As I explained at the time, if there is an issue of the Court's competence to entertain Mr Priestley's applications it would have to be sorted out sooner or later. Whether or not those objections have any merit, it was clearly in the best interests of all parties to deal with them at the outset. 3 The respondents filed their objections to the competency of the applications on 13 February 2008 and they were listed for hearing on 31 March 2008. When the notices came on for hearing the applicant raised a constitutional issue and therefore Gyles J did not proceed with the hearing but ordered that s 78B notices be served on or before 28 April 2008. 4 By letter dated 18 April 2008 addressed to me in chambers the applicant requested that I recuse myself from hearing his applications. His letter contained a mixture of factual allegations and submissions and, in large part, was difficult to understand. On 12 May 2008, having heard Mr Priestley on his application for recusal, I dismissed the application and said I would provide reasons at a later date. These are my reasons. 5 Mr Priestley's application appears to be based on two grounds. First, he regards my granting the respondents an extension of time to file their objections to competency despite his objections as indicating bias against him. Secondly, he appears to have thought that orders entered on the Court's eCourt page were different from those made on 6 February. 6 Mr Priestley raised the question of the orders in email communications sent to the ACT District Registry. His concern was misplaced. On 21 February my associate wrote to Mr Priestley enclosing photocopies of the short minutes of order which I signed and dated on 6 February. They are identical to the orders as entered on the eCourt page. At the hearing of the recusal motion on 12 May 2008, Mr Priestley disputed that fact and said that he wished to call as witnesses certain lawyers employed by the Australian Government Solicitor who act for the respondents in this matter and also my present associate and her immediate predecessor. He had previously sought leave to issue subpoenas to those persons. Mr Priestley said that he wished to call these witnesses as they were present in Court on 6 February and could testify that the orders made in Court were not the same as those entered on the eCourt page. In my view the transcript is sufficient evidence of the orders made in Court and there was no need to call these witnesses. Mr Priestley submitted that my refusal to grant leave for the issue of the subpoenas was further evidence of bias. I reject that submission and there is no more to be said on this point. 7 Mr Priestley put as an additional ground for his application that I recuse myself that an issue in the proceeding is the validity of O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules. He submits that as the Federal Court Rules are made by the judges of the Court there would be a conflict of interest. He anticipated making an application to have his matter transferred to the High Court but as no such application had in fact been made, I did not allow him to make further submissions on that point. 8 In my view Mr Priestley's application had no merit and for that reason I dismissed it. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.