Harriman, Allen Louis v The Queen & Anor [1996] FCA 1020

Harriman, Allen Louis v The Queen & Anor [1996] FCA 1020

The proceeding disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious and an abuse of process. The High Court had finally determined, in the same cause involving the same parties and subject matter, that no question arose under the Constitution or involved its interpretation, so the constitutional claims attacking the conviction necessarily failed. In any event, the civil claim was an impermissible collateral attack on an exhausted criminal conviction. The deportation remedies were unavailable or futile because the Deportation Order had already been executed with the applicant's concurrence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Seeking a Constitutional Declaration Concerning a Criminal Conviction and Relief Concerning a Deportation Order / Respondents' Motions Under Federal Court Rules, O20 R2(1) to Strike Out or Dismiss the Proceeding as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action, Embarrassing, Vexatious or an Abuse of Process
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Disposal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Criminal Conviction' 'removal to the High Court' 'deportation Order' 'judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977']
['civil Procedure' 'constitutional Law' 'administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['summary Disposal' 'strike Out' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Attack on Criminal Conviction' 'removal to the High Court' 'deportation Order' 'judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Seeking a Constitutional Declaration Concerning a Criminal Conviction and Relief Concerning a Deportation Order / Respondents' Motions Under Federal Court Rules, O20 R2(1) to Strike Out or Dismiss the Proceeding as Disclosing No Reasonable Cause of Action, Embarrassing, Vexatious or an Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the High Court's reasons dismissing the application for removal conclusively determined that the applicant's claims concerning his conviction did not arise under the Constitution or involve its interpretation." "Whether the applicant's civil claim seeking a declaration that his criminal conviction was void was a collateral attack on the conviction and an abuse of process." 'Whether paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.' "Whether the execution of the Deportation Order with the applicant's concurrence made the requested injunction, prohibition and ADJR relief futile or unavailable." 'Whether the amended application and claim should be dismissed under Federal Court Rules, O20 r2(1).']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was vexatious and an abuse of process. The High Court had finally determined, in the same cause involving the same parties and subject matter, that no question arose under the Constitution or involved its interpretation, so the constitutional claims attacking the conviction necessarily failed. In any event, the civil claim was an impermissible collateral attack on an exhausted criminal conviction. The deportation remedies were unavailable or futile because the Deportation Order had already been executed with the applicant's concurrence.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents of the application, including each of those respondents' motion for dismissal and any costs reserved on 1 March 1996."]