Exam 2016, answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Exam 2016, answers PDF

Description

Past Exam 2012 A) Whether the AMA can force the Minister to provide reasons for Carl’s appointment or provide any advice she has received from her department about Carl’s appointment. At common law, there is no need to provide reasons. The ADJR, can apply to receive reasoning which will require to provide reasons. Also can go to FOI B) Whether the AMA can successfully challenge Carl’s appointment to the Panel.

Jurisdiction: it is a decision under an enactment, therefore clearly in the ADJR jurisdiction, is an officer of the commonwealth, therefore under const. Jurisdiction Standing: not directly affect, however through the special interest test, here the AMA is likely satisfy the special interest test, CASE Grounds of Review Non-compliance with statutory requirement S84(3) on the face must consult AMA, determine what the meaning of consult is and given that the minister did not inform the AMA about the decision to appoint Carl, does that amount to a serious breach to retrospectively invalidate the appointment. PBS analysis, look to the importance of the panel, the purpose of the statute and the importance of the appointment. The importance of consulting the AMA before appointing someone to the panel is clear. Nature of non-compliance serious enough to invalidate the decision. The lack of consultation is likely to satisfy this. Bias Potentially bias, he was a chief advisor and was in private practice for a month and appointed to the panel. Carl does not seem to be fit to be appointed to the panel. Carl is close with the minister and is unfit for appointment, a fair reasonable observer, the minister might not bring an open mind to this decision. (Edner test) He has been promoted beyond reason and possible have been appoint for reasons other than his expertise. Not clear cut. Relief Certiorari - quash the decision and get Carl off the board Declaration - he was not fit and proper for the panel Jurisdictional error a conclusory annotation about a particular kind of error (PBS) a name for retrospective invalidity. Guided by the statute.

C) Whether he can successfully challenge the decision of the panel, and on what basis?

Jurisdiction: an officer of the commonwealth, it is a finding under an enactment that is of administrative character. Although it is merely an interim finding, Allen sufficient effect on rights are attached. Standing: no issues with standing, the person is directly affected by the decision. Grounds of Review Procedural Fairness Disappointment of LE is not a ground itself enough for a GOR. (s10, Gagolor) There must be a practical injustice (Lamb)

Practical Injustice - here the common assumption that the code was applicable effect and infected the submissions by Sigmund. The fact that they parted from the code without informing him and allowing him to provide new submissions, VEAL, creditable relevant criteria, did not have the chance to remake submissions in accordance to the new criteria. Generally this will render JE. Unreasonableness, Irrationality, Illogicality Inappropriate practices - there has to be a medical purpose, there is no evidence here to support that this is not medically warranted. In the medical journal suggesting that it is to be respected therefore it has the support of a large amount of support from the medical practitioners. Inflexible Application of Policy Although not clear what the policy is that they are applying, however the fact that they are not apply the ethnics code at all indicates. However it appears that they have considered the exception mentioned in the last line. Therefore this cannot be raised as a GOR. Remedies Certiorari - quash the finding of inappropriate medical Declaration to repair reputation in the medical community. Would NOT want prohibition: preserve the finding in part that it was inappropriate, between when the court order is made the decision would be valid.

D) Could the AMA’s decision to change its Code of Ethics be challenged in Judicial Review proceedings? AMA is a private body, it is not given power under the Act, the minister merely has to consider its recommendation, NEAT - Not in the ADJR Act it is not under an enactment (Tang) direct empowerment, referential to the statute It is also not of administrative character Therefore not reviewable under ADJR Act. Under s39(b) or 75 - officer of the commonwealth, an action to which the commonwealth is a party to. The AMA is a private body, not an officer of the commonwealth. The fact that it has representatives from both house and dictated by an act does not change this. Datafin, there is no regulatory function performed by the AMA...