Beame; Els v Commissioner of Police & Ors [2023] NSWSC 347

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beame; Els v Commissioner of Police & Ors [2023] NSWSC 347 Hearing dates: 29 November 2022 Date of orders: 29 November 2022; 6 April 2023 Decision date: 06 April 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Yehia J Decision: (1) In the case of Teal Els: (i) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the purported penalty notice numbered 406060068 is not a penalty notice within the meaning of s 20 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) and is invalid. (ii) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the Commissioner of Fines Administration must refund Ms Teal Els the sum of $826 pursuant to s 122C of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW). (iii) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the Commissioner of Fines Administration may not validly make a penalty notice enforcement order within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 3 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that is referable to the purported penalty notice. (2) In the case of Brenden Beame: (i) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) the purported penalty notice numbered 4066651600 is not a penalty notice within the meaning of s 20 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) and is invalid. (ii) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the Commissioner of fines Administration must refund Brenden Beame the sum of $436 pursuant to s 122C of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW). (iii) The Court declares that, pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), the Commissioner of Fines Administration may not validly make a penalty notice enforcement order within the meaning of Division 4 of Part 3 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) that is referable to the purported penalty notice. (3) By consent, no order as to costs. Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – COVID-19 penalty notices – Whether the brief description on the notices complied with the requirements of s 20 of the Fines Act 1996 (NSW) – Whether the notices are invalid – Whether it is necessary to identify the offence-creating provision in order to satisfy the specification requirement in s 20 of the Fines Act – Should the Court give reasons where the substantive declaration is by consent – Where the plaintiffs are entitled to be vindicated in their claim that the notices are invalid – Where there is a public interest in the reasons for invalidity – The purported penalty notices are invalid Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 12 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 55 Fines Act 1996 (NSW) ss 20, 22A, 23, 23A, 24A, 57, 58, 59, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 122C Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) s 10 Search Warrants Act 1985 (NSW) s 5(1)(b) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 69 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 28.5 Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 Chief Examiner v Brown (a pseudonym) (2013) 44 VR 741; [2013] VSCA 167 Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Leases Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Gillis (2003) 59 NSWLR 153; [2004] NSWCA 340 Gantry Acquisition Corporation v Parker & Parsley Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 554 Gemmill Homes Pty Ltd v Sanders [2018] WASC 179 Harofam Pty Ltd v Scherman (2013) 42 VR 372; [2013] VSCA 104 Heatscape Pty Ltd v Mahoney (No 2) (2016) 217 LGERA 332; [2016] NSWLEC 45 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2018) 360 ALR 124; [2018] FCA 703 Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd v Mine Subsidence Board (2011) 243 CLR 558; [2011] HCA 19 Joukhador v Commissioner of Police [2018] NSWSC 872 Knaggs v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2007) 170 A Crim R 366; [2007] NSWCA 83 LPG Laverton Property No 5 Pty Ltd v Australian Vinyls Corporation Pty Ltd (2020) 63 VR 271; [2020] VSC 689 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Al Masri (2003) 126 FCR 54; [2003] FCAFC 70 New South Wales v Corbett (2007) 230 CLR 606; [2009] HCA 32 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia (Offshore Processing Case) (2010) 243 CLR 319; [2010] HCA 41 Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; [1986] HCA 7 Re Bill Express Ltd (in liq) (2010) 238 FLR 329; [2010] VSC 101 Re Bolton; Ex parte Bean (1987) 162 CLR 514 Re Lawrence; Ex parte Goldbar Holdings Pty Ltd (1994) 11 WAR 549 Regional Express Holdings Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots (2017) 262 CLR 456; [2017] HCA 55 Ryde City Council v Pedras [2009] NSWCCA 248 Smethurst v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (2020) 272 CLR 177; [2020] HCA 14 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud [1989] VR 8 Taheri v Vitek (2014) 87 NSWLR 403; [2014] NSWCA 209 Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 Transtar Linehaul Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 196 FCR 271; [2011] FCA 856 Vanstone v Clark (2005) 147 FCR 299; [2005] FCAFC 189 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24 Williams v Keelty (2001) 111 FCR 175; [2001] FCA 1301 Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Brenden Beame (First Plaintiff) Teal Els (Second Plaintiff) Rohan Pank (Third Plaintiff) Commissioner of Police (First Defendant) Commissioner of Fines Administration (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Richardson SC and T Smartt (Plaintiffs) D Kell SC and J Caldwell (Defendants)