Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner. Answer: Introduction: Administrative law is considerably the only discipline that seeks to address the legality and morality of actions that may be taken by people and agencies which are mandated with power. This discipline therefore seeks to control and ensure the conformity to the laid principles and that decisions management or actions made can be accounted for. Administrative decisions are one of the most controversial decisions in both legal and scholarly debates. There is a general consensus that decisions are a result of a process that should when examined based on their merits will adequately justify the result reached. This happens so to ensure that Executive acts conform to the law in that each act should plausibly provide a reasonable explanation in order warrant an explanation of powers exercised by state or the agencies of state and even public officers. Every law requires, however unreasoned, irrational, illogical management, or unreasonable they may be, that such reasons when examined , will make no difference if another person in a capacity of a decision-maker might have been able enough to reason the issue in question to that conclusion. When the courts come to interpret the constitutionality of certain decisions it is called a judicial review which determines the conformity of conducts of an administrative agency actions to the laid down law. Judicial review by a court looks only at the lawfulness or legality of the decision its legal merits, you might say, putting aside the policy merits of the decision as a matter outside the portfolio of the courts. This essay will examine the steps that would be taken to challenge the decision of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation Flying Dragon Airlines and the decision by the Attorney Generals Department to indict Thor on New charges. It is a general counsel to also challenge their legality by examining the existing legal arguments. In this essay, Flying Dragon Airlines and Thor Thorson will be referred to as Appellant One and Appellant Two respectively. The client Flying Dragon Airlines to appeal the decision by the Minister by seeking a judicial review on the interpretation of the decisions of the Minister pursuant to article 101 and article `103 and for the merits of an administrative decision by the Minister its operations. As an advocate for the Flying Dragon Airline herein, the Appellant One, it would be necessary to advise the client to seek an interpretation of the court on the legality of this decision by looking the issues of concern that the said decision is ought to be premised on and how their possible violation led to the said decision. Such violation The Appellant One, therefore, would seek clarification on a possible commission of contravention of law based on; broad ultra vires, narrow ultra vires, denial of a procedural justice and fairness and if there was an erroneous commission of illegality management in the process of a decision-making. The Appellant One would be advised also to seek a court injunction to stop the decision from being effected and find fault with the decision to suspend its operations. In this instance, Flying Dragon Airlines would consider asking the court to find fault with the Ministers actions as violating the spirit (the moral obligation} and the letter (the constitutionality) of the provision of the said Air Flights Act 2017. To this effect, therefore, the court will be asked to determine that any action within the framework of the statutory power, the Ministers decisions exceeded some of the provisions of the Acts in question or in a way that would be deemed by the court as inappropriate. Inviting court to look into issues that would amount to be types of errors that the courts began to identify under this notion of broader ultra vires based on these issues: Whether the Minister acted on evidence; Whether the Minister acted unreasonably; Whether the Minister misused his exercise of discretionary powers Whether the Minister acted out of malice The law or statutory Acts provide for individuals or state agencies to act within the scope of the powers provided for them expressly or to act in a way that does follow the prescribed method. If an agency acts outside this scope of its statutory powers or in contravention of these powers then these the legitimacy of these powers must be questioned and subjected to review. If a statute requires the agency to do something in a particular way, and it does it in some other way, it has also acted beyond its powers. IT would be of judicial significance to ask the court to interrogate whether the Minister acted in contravention of this said Act by misusing his discretionary powers. No evidence as a ground for the suspension of Flying Dragon Airlines In this principle, any decision must be made upon establishment of evidence subject an independent investigation process that may bring incriminating issues on the conduct of the affected party. [4] This provides the ground for misuse of discretionary power and is seemingly one of the bases of the violation of the letter of the law by acts of ulterior acts. It was not proper for the Minister to have relied on an article appearing on a newspaper column that suggested Alice had knowledge that their flights were unsafe. In my opinion and in the words of Alice her decision to advise her nephew Julian out of applying for a job as a fight steward with Flying Dragon was informed by her good will of not wanting to appear nepotistic and conflict of interest. That the Minister did not process an investigation that would be sufficient to suspend all flights by Flying Dragon Airlines, ABN 111-000-000. It is evident that the response given by Alice her letter on 21 July 2018 to the Ministers letter of inquiry 15 July 2018. Preceding the Ministers decision to suspend the airline was based on an anonymous and analogous evidence presented on an unknown and unofficial site by pseudo-individual. This would not meet the evidential threshold to inform his decisions. A decision-maker need to advise a party of adverse tentative findings or give a person who might be adversely affected a draft report to comment on their take before a decision is finally reached. [5] Justice Doussa J. found it significant that any actions that affect any party be in conflict or for whatever application before any agency must be noted of the findings and the consequences of such findings. In this the appellant herein, Flying Dragon Airline would seek to challenge any logic of an exercise of a statutory power on by the person in question and in this case the Minister. Establishing here is that the reason or motive for the decision is to be deduced by an extrapolation of facts upon which such a decision would be based. If established that a decision is improperly made and abuse of power deduced to have occurred, the only justification for the existence of abuse of power in the process of making a decision upon inferred facts, then, that decision has to be rendered null.[6] It is absurd and so injurious to the decision that the Minister not only on no evidence basis but also in the interest of his informant who is a cousin of a CEO of a rival airline, Victory Airlines. What one would deduce from this is that the failure by the Minister to give an evidentiary suspension did not only show malice but also a misuse of power bestowed on him or her. The decision of suspension would only be appropriately reached if such a decision would be an end-product of an investigation. And that failure to conduct such an investigation made the establishment of fact hard for proof. The court should find this decision irrational as it is merely based on speculation and some unknown website printout from a pseudo-author in the case of Appellant One. Citing the authority a decision can be invalidated of for being unreasonable when found to be containing irreconcilable arithmetical mistakes. The decision here should be invalidated as being unreasonable as it broadly depends on the Pseudo-web print outs or bureaucratic nature of the Minister of wanting the airline to pay for not responding to his letter as he had expected. Similarly, the prosecutors arguments in Appellant Twos case seem to be unreasonable enough not to understand the rationale of double-jeopardy and the fact that the courts had acquitted them on every ground seemingly presented before the court by the prosecution on their failure to conclusively make their case against him. It must not be misconstrued that the Appellant One recognizes the Minister as a very reasonable decision-maker. The argument is that the decision to suspend the airline must be seen as an unreasonable decision, not because the decision-maker was unreasonable, but because the decision-maker made a mistake of law. [7] Consequently, Appellant Twos case finds the decision as bad as it is due to the unreasonableness of even jeopardizing his situation by downing the flight he was to be board on the eve of his departure. The prosecutors argument is also prejudicial. The independent grounds that have been identified points to several issues including fraud and bad faith under the review of Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Acts in the legal world. It is no doubt that is an ongoing debate and consideration. The grounds here seek to fact-find that a discretionary power or statutory power bestowed on an agency or individual is enforced in a way that shows malice, untruthful, or even ill motives. Here the Minister by seeming to subvert the rule of law for a fair hearing and not providing a detailed reason for the suspension of the airline seems to act in bad faith, surprisingly to the advantage of the rival airlines. Established in this case is an instance where an administrator with ulterior motives or intentions thereby eliciting the reason to believe that the Minister misuses a statutory power for the purpose of defeating the statutory rights of Original inhabitants of the region in question therein under the laws that provide for the fundamental land rights for all individuals. Presumed, apprehended, apparent or ostensible bias This form of bias arises from situations which elicit a reason for suspicion or even an establishment of bias from any fair-minded observer.[10] One who by all ideals have no interest in the said process but would be a fair judge in his or her own evaluation. The labeled allegations were barely malicious to edge the competitor airline out of business so that to give his a competitive advantage of the market. The Minister seemingly acted of bias in favour of the rival company, Victory Airlines, whose director is the informant to the Minister and a public servant. It would be advisable for Appellant Two to seek a judicial review on the merits of such eminent prosecution. The argument is that Thor had been acquitted. And arresting him would only mean a case of double-jeopardy. Whether these two are inter-related or not, is not suffice the Ministers decision to suspend the flight. But again it would be in bad faith for the prosecutor to try to indict Thor of other crimes based on the same evidence that had suffered a judicial and procedural deficiency. It is therefore in the best interests of the letter of the law that Thor file a demurrer to evidence and double-jeopardy motions with the appellate court. Thus, an acquittal would mean that any cause and course to indict Thor of any charges is prohibited under double jeopardy principles. On the demurrer to evidence, Thor can find fault with the evidence provided by the prosecution. Bibliography Round, Tom, Study Guide for LAW00117 Administrative Law (School of Law Justice; Southern Cross University, 2016) Rares, Steven. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions; Should There be a 21st-Century Rethink? (Speech, UNSW, 15 October 2014. Federal Court of Australia.) www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20141015. Accessed on 28 September 2017. Ashbridge Investments v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 1 WLR 1320. In R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore (1965) 1 QB 456; In Coleen Properties v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1971) 1 WLR 433. Meadows v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 90 FCR 370, www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/1706.html Thompson v Randwick Municipal Corporation, (1950) 81 CLR 87 [9.2.14C], www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1950/33. National Trust of Australia v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment (1997) 142 FLR 125, www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/1997/177.html Minister for Primary Industries Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 381, www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1993/45. Jones, Melinda Douglas, Roger Neil. Douglas and Jones's Administrative Law (Annandale N.S.W: The Federation Press, 2002) Connolly Anthony J, The Foundations of Australian Public Law (Cambridge Port Melbourne, VIC Cambridge University Press, 2017) R v Toohey (Aboriginal Land Commissioner); Ex parte Northern Land Council,(1981) 151 CLR 170 [2.3.10C] Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 [10.5.25C], www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/17.html Demurrer to evidence. (In BATASnatin library. n.d.), https://www.batasnatin.com/law-library/remedial-law/criminal-procedure/653-demurrer-to-evidence.html