THE QUEEN V. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT AND DANIEL RAYMOND DWYER; EX PARTE NEIL REHEIRI GLOVER

THE QUEEN V. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HAROLD EDWARD HOLT AND DANIEL RAYMOND DWYER; EX PARTE NEIL REHEIRI GLOVER

The Minister or authorised officer has a wide and discretionary power under the Passports Act 1938-1948 to refuse an application for a passport, including on grounds of national security, and there is no evidence that discretion was not exercised in good faith in the present case.

Parties
Applicant: Neil Reheiri Glover; First Respondent: The Right Honourable Harold Edward Holt; Second Respondent: Daniel Raymond Dwyer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 1955
Procedural Posture
Application for Order to Show Cause (mandamus) / Judgment After Hearing of Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discretionary Powers, Issuance of Passports, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Discretionary Powers Issuance of Passports Judicial Review of Administrative Action

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Reheiri Glover

Applicant

The Right Honourable Harold Edward Holt

First Respondent

Daniel Raymond Dwyer

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Order to Show Cause (mandamus) / Judgment After Hearing of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister or authorised officer has discretion to refuse a passport under the Passports Act 1938-1948
  2. 2 Whether the statutory discretion was exercised according to law
  3. 3 Whether refusal on national security grounds is lawful under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister or authorised officer has a wide and discretionary power under the Passports Act 1938-1948 to refuse an application for a passport, including on grounds of national security, and there is no evidence that discretion was not exercised in good faith in the present case.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • application dismissed