Jin v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Allen Jin, filed a notice of motion on 11 September 2020 seeking an order pursuant to s 6(1) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) (“the Act”) that this proceeding be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court on 24 August 2020 by way of summons, seeking judicial review of an order made by Milledge LCM on 9 July 2020. The defendants to the summons were the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police as the first defendant, and Milledge LCM as the second defendant. By an amended summons filed by the plaintiff on 8 September 2020, the second defendant became the Local Court of New South Wales.

2. [2]

   Milledge LCM’s decision was made pursuant to s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“the decision”). In its essence, the plaintiff’s claim is that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a decision of an administrative character made concerning Commonwealth legislation, and that the proceedings should have been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia. Accordingly, the plaintiff now seeks that the proceedings be transferred to the Federal Court.

3. [3]

   The first defendant informed the Court by correspondence that it consents to the proposed transfer and that it is content for the matter to be dealt with in Chambers. On 8 September 2020, it filed proposed short minutes of order. The second defendant filed a submitting appearance on the same date.

4. [4]

   In support of his application, the plaintiff relies upon an affidavit of his solicitor, Sam Chamas, sworn 9 September 2020. Mr Chamas deposed that the decision falls under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“ADJR Act”), that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision in question, and the proceedings should be transferred to the Federal Court.

Consideration

1. [5]

   Section 9(1) of the ADJR Act provides:

2. [6]

   Section 9(2) of the ADJR Act provides that “a decision to which this section applies” is “a decision to which this Act applies”, which is defined in s 3 of the ADJR Act to include a decision of an administrative character made under a Commonwealth Act.

3. [7]

   Section 6 of the Act provides:

4. [8]

   Section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) concerns applications by a police constable to a magistrate for an order requiring a specific person to provide information or assistance in respect of a computer or computer system.

5. [9]

   I am satisfied that the decision is of an administrative character made pursuant to a Commonwealth Act, which falls for review under the ADJR Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a review of that decision, and the requirements of s 6(1) of the Act have therefore been met.

Orders

1. [10]

   I make the following orders: