Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory v Heiss [2002] FCAFC 38; [2002] FCA 187

Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory v Heiss [2002] FCAFC 38; [2002] FCA 187

The Attorney-General for the ACT wrongly treated the absence of a prison in the ACT as a necessary precondition for participation in the transfer scheme and failed to consider the respondent's application according to law. While the primary reason for refusal (absence of a prison) was based on a misconstruction of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
['prisoner Transfer' 'ministerial Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['prisoner Transfer' 'ministerial Discretion' 'judicial Review' 'relevant and Irrelevant Considerations']

Source-derived case record

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Attorney-General for the ACT, in refusing consent to a prisoner's transfer under the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1993 (ACT), took into account irrelevant considerations or misconstrued the statutory discretion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Attorney-General for the ACT wrongly treated the absence of a prison in the ACT as a necessary precondition for participation in the transfer scheme and failed to consider the respondent's application according to law. While the primary reason for refusal (absence of a prison) was based on a misconstruction of the enabling statute, the subsidiary reasons given (cost and lack of control over prisoners held in NSW) were not irrelevant considerations excluded by the statute and could, in appropriate cases, be considered by the Minister. The discretion conferred by s 9 of the Act is broad, but the Minister must properly exercise it according to the subject-matter, scope, and purpose of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • ['Order 2 of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dated 18 December 2001 is set aside.' 'The matter is referred to the Attorney-General for redetermination according to law.' 'No order as to costs of the appeal.']