Brian Curran v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea, The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Arnold Marsipal, Bernard Narokobi and Lucas Waka as members of a Ministerial Committee of Review [1997] PNGLR 230

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: [1997] PNGLR 230
• Date: 28 November 1997
• Year: 1997

Full Title: Brian Curran v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea, The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Arnold Marsipal, Bernard Narokobi and Lucas Waka as members of a Ministerial Committee of Review [1997] PNGLR 230

Supreme Court: Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J, Injia J, Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 28 November 1997

1 Appeal—the burden of proof in a judicial review proceedings—proof of other judicial proceedings, Evidence Act (Ch48), s44

2 Appeal—breach of natural justice

3 Constitution s41

___________________________

Amet CJ:

I agree with the opinion of the Deputy Chief Justice and have nothing further to add.

Kapi DCJ:

Mr Brian Curran (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant") is a British citizen and was employed as a lawyer by Blake Dawson Waldron, a firm of lawyers in Port Moresby. He was issued with an entry permit No C/007558/91 on 20 December 1991 pursuant to the provisions of the Migration Act (Ch6) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which permitted him to enter and remain in Papua New Guinea until 10 March 1993 for the sole purpose of employment with Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers.

On 24 June 1992 the appellant was served with a notice dated 23 June 1992 by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs cancelling his entry permit pursuant to s6 of the Act. At the same time he was served with a removal order under s12 of the Act.

By a letter dated 25 June 1992, the appellant sought a review of the Minister's decision by a Committee of Review pursuant to s6 (2) of the Act. In a letter dated 17 July 1992 the Secretary of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised the appellant that a Review Committee had reviewed the cancellation of the permit and it had upheld the decision of the Minister and requested that the appellant should leave the country within 7 days of the letter.

The appellant sought judicial review of this decision in the National Court. The nature of the review sought was in the nature of a declaration that the decision of the Minister and the Review Committee was harsh and oppressive or not warranted by or disproportionate to the requirements of the particular case or is otherwise not, in the particular circumstances, reasonably justifiable in a democratic society pursuant to s41 of the Constitution.

The matter came before Mr Justice Brown for hearing and he dismissed the application on 6 July 1994. On 12 August 1994 the appellant filed an appeal against the whole of the decision on the following grounds of appeal:

"Grounds

(a)...