THE QUEEN V. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT AND DANIEL RAYMOND DWYER; EX PARTE NEIL REHEIRI GLOVER

o.n109/61

4S Gomer, Gort, Relat, iim,

ORIGINAL')

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUS' RALIA

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT AND DANIEL RAYMOND DWYER |

Ex_parteNEIL REHEIRI.GLOVER......

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at_._'Sydney on_Chursday,—-Zth April, 19556... /

'THE QUEEN

'CHE RIGHT HONOURABIE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT "AND DANIEL RAYMOND DWYER

EX PARTE NEIL REHEIRI GLOVER

JUDGMENT TAYLOR J.

HE RIGHT HONOURABLE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT AND DANTED RAYMOND DWYER

EX PARTE NEIL REHEIRI GLOVER

JUDGMENT TAYLOR J.

This is an application made on behalf of one Neil Reheiri Glover for an order calling upon the first~named respondent, the Minister for Immigration, to show cause why he should not be required to authorise and direct an officer, within the meaning of the Passports Act 1938, to issue a passport to the applicant, or, alternatively, why the Minister should not be required to consider and determine according to law an application for a passport made by him. The claim for relief against the second—named respondent, who is said to be "an authorised officer" within the meaning of the Act is for an order calling upon him to show cause why he should not be ordered to issue a passport to the applicant, or, alternatively, why he should not be ordered to consider and determine the applicant's application for a passport according to law.

The evidence shows that the applicant's application was refused and the matters which were argued upon this application were concerned with the question whether the Minister, or the officer concerned, had any discretion to refuse the issue of a passport to the applicant and, if so, whether in refusing to issue a passport the statutory discretion had been exercised according to law.

The Passports Act 1938-1948 provides, by S. 7;

that, subject to the regulations, any officer authorised in that