Allan, John Gerrard v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor Peter John Hardcastle v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor [1983] FCA 204

Allan, John Gerrard v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor Peter John Hardcastle v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor [1983] FCA 204

The regulatory framework permits disciplinary proceedings for conduct amounting to criminal offences, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the charges. The institution and amendment of proceedings, including the service of amended charges via solicitors, was valid and did not give rise to procedural unfairness or duplicity. No denial of natural justice or bar by double jeopardy was established.

Parties
Applicant: John Gerrard Allan; Applicant: Peter John Hardcastle; Firstnamed Respondent: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; Secondnamed Respondent: The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Australian Federal Police Disciplinary Proceedings, Double Jeopardy, Duplicity in Charges, Natural Justice, Proper Construction of Discipline Regulations
Administrative Law Police Disciplinary Law Australian Federal Police Disciplinary Proceedings Double Jeopardy Duplicity in Charges Natural Justice Proper Construction of Discipline Regulations

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gerrard Allan

Applicant

Peter John Hardcastle

Applicant

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

Firstnamed Respondent

The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal

Secondnamed Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Order of Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct alleged against the applicants constituted 'disgraceful or improper conduct' under the regulations
  2. 2 Whether disciplinary proceedings were barred due to previous proceedings before the Disciplinary Board or by double jeopardy
  3. 3 Whether the charges were bad for duplicity

Ratio Decidendi

The regulatory framework permits disciplinary proceedings for conduct amounting to criminal offences, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the charges. The institution and amendment of proceedings, including the service of amended charges via solicitors, was valid and did not give rise to procedural unfairness or duplicity. No denial of natural justice or bar by double jeopardy was established.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • That the application be dismissed.
  • That the applicant pay one half of the costs of the firstnamed respondent of and incidental to this application and application No. ACT G4 of 1983.