AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Administrative Review Council - Admin Review

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Review Council - Admin Review >> 1999 >> [1999] AdminRw 18

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Editors --- "Attorney-General v Oates - Case Note" [1999] AdminRw 18; (1999) 51 Admin Review 48


Attorney-General v Oates

High Court, Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ, 5 August 1999

[1999] HCA 35

Procedural fairness in decisions to prosecute under the Corporations Law—statutory construction

In this case, the Commonwealth Minister for Justice had consented, under section 1316 of the Corporations Law, to the institution of proceedings against the respondent, Oates, with respect to alleged offences under the Companies (Western Australia) Code. Section 1316 provided as follows:

Despite anything in any other law, proceedings for an offence against this Law may be instituted within the period of 5 years after the act or omission alleged to constitute the offence or, with the Minister's consent, at any later time.

The alleged offences related to corporate dealings that had occurred over six years prior to the Minister's consent to commence proceedings.

Mr Oates, the respondent, sought relief in the Federal Court from the Minister's decision under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 claiming that he had been denied procedural fairness in that the Minister had failed to give him a hearing before consenting to the institution of proceedings.

Moore J, at first instance, dismissed the respondent's arguments, holding that the Minister had not been required to accord procedural fairness.

The respondent then successfully appealed Moore J's decision to the Full Federal Court, where he was granted a declaration that the consent given by the Minister to institute proceedings was void for want of procedural fairness in the Minister's decision-making process.

The appellant appealed the Full Court's decision to the High Court. The High Court decided unanimously that section 1316 did not require the Minister's consent to the bringing of prosecutions.

As a consequence, the High Court found that it was unnecessary to consider the question whether the Minister was under an obligation to accord procedural fairness; and, if so, whether the Minister had in fact discharged this obligation.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/1999/18.html