The only appeal from an administrative decision taken by CASA, after internal review, is a review by the AAT.
Hmmmm … not sure that’s entirely correct. Not aware of any internal review processes in CASA but, in any event, the option of asking a court to intervene is
always there in principle. Having said that, the availability of review by the AAT will usually result in courts deciding not to intervene until after the AAT has looked at the matter (and, to anticipate Up-into-the-air’s possible comment: No, the intervention of the courts in these circumstances
never involves a hearing, by the ‘peers’ of the 'accused', of the case against ‘the accused’.)
The only appeal to a decision by the Tribunal is to the Federal Court and then only on a question of law. There is no review of the merits of the decision.
Hmmmm … not sure that’s entirely correct, at least on the limitation of appeals to the Federal Court. Your next question is an example of an issue that could go directly from the AAT to the High Court. And the line between what’s a review of a question of law versus a question of fact and merits has always been very blurry for me. My brain is probably not big enough, because occasionally the court’s decision seems to me to take into account sympathy for the applicant….
I wonder how a constitutional argument would go on the basis that a licence is property and the revocation of a licence by administrative means is an acquisition of property requiring s51 (xxxi) compensation on just terms?
So if my Altzheimer’s becomes unmanageable and a licensing authority revokes my bus driver’s licence that I need in order to earn an income to feed myself, that’s an acquisition of property other than on just terms, for which I’m entitled to be compensated? Happy days! My Altzheimer’s is not as depressing any more….
The point of administrative actions against licences etc is that the holder no longer satisfies the criteria for holding the licence etc. Failure to satisfy those criteria may not be, and in most cases is not, a crime, and in many cases may be a genuine tragedy with profound consequences for lots of people. But the criteria for holding the licence are either met or they’re not, and the relevant procedures, the courts and tribunals with jurisdiction, the evidential burdens and processes to work out whether the criteria are met, or not,
have little, if anything, to do with juries of peers, or smoking guns, or rights to silence, or beyond reasonable doubt or any of the other folklore that circulates about these matters.