Taylor v Public Service Board (NSW) [1976] HCA 36

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ. Taylor v Public Service Board (NSW) [1976] HCA 36

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

June 25 Barwick C.J.

The appellant, a chief prison officer in the employ of the Department of Corrective Services of the Government of New South Wales, was charged under s. 56 of the Public Service Act, 1902 N.S.W., as amended ("the Act"), with:

(a) wilful disobedience or disregard of a lawful order given him on 15th October, 1973 in that he did without sufficient cause strike two prisoners at the Central Industrial Prison, Malabar, namely R. P. Wright and S. L. Emanuel with a baton.

(b) disgraceful or improper conduct in that:

(i) on or about 15th October, 1973 whilst performing the duties of Chief Prison Officer, Central Industrial Prison, Malabar, he did without sufficient cause strike a prisoner, one R. P. Wright with a baton.

(ii) on or about 15th October, 1973, whilst performing the duties of Chief Prison Officer, Central Industrial Prison, Malabar, he did without sufficient cause strike a prisoner, one S. L. Emanuel with a baton.

It is clear that the hearing of these charges was an inquiry or investigation under the authority of the Act within the operation of s. 11 (1). The Public Service Board ("the Board"), by instrument of delegation pursuant to the provisions of that section, delegated to one of its members, William Hedley Gent, "its power authority duty or function to hear an Inquiry under Section 56 (of the Act) into a charge preferred against Prison Officers, Department of Corrective Services".

Prior to the laying of the charge against the appellant, there had been a magisterial inquiry in which the events out of which the charges arose had been investigated: indeed, the magistrate as a result of his inquiry had recommended that charges under the Act be laid against the appellant and other prison officers. Charges were laid against other such officers as well as against the appellant.