Hardcastle v The Commissioner of Police & Ors [1984] FCA 103

Hardcastle v The Commissioner of Police & Ors [1984] FCA 103

Disciplinary proceedings may encompass conduct also amounting to a criminal offence, as their purposes and consequences are distinct; notices and amendments instituting proceedings were valid; Tribunal applied correct standard of proof and gave sufficient reasons; procedural requirements regarding notice, duplicity, and timing were satisfied.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Peter John Hardcastle; Respondent/first Respondent: The Commissioner of Police / The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; Second Respondent: The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and Judicial Review Application / Judgment on Appeal; Reasons for Dismissal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Police Discipline, Double Jeopardy, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Standard of Proof, Duplicity, Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Disciplinary Law Judicial Review Police Discipline Double Jeopardy Admission of Fresh Evidence Standard of Proof Duplicity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter John Hardcastle

Applicant/appellant

The Commissioner of Police / The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

Respondent/first Respondent

The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and Judicial Review Application / Judgment on Appeal; Reasons for Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'improper conduct' in the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations includes conduct constituting a criminal offence
  2. 2 Whether notices instituting disciplinary proceedings were defective or bad for duplicity
  3. 3 Whether proper standard of proof was applied

Ratio Decidendi

Disciplinary proceedings may encompass conduct also amounting to a criminal offence, as their purposes and consequences are distinct; notices and amendments instituting proceedings were valid; Tribunal applied correct standard of proof and gave sufficient reasons; procedural requirements regarding notice, duplicity, and timing were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeals be dismissed.
  • Peter John Hardcastle pay to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police his costs of the appeals.