Thor's Legal Defenses in Court

This assignment examines the legal strategies available to Thor, a fictional character facing criminal charges. It focuses on two key defenses: double jeopardy and demurrer to evidence. The analysis delves into the application of these defenses in light of relevant case law, highlighting how Thor can utilize them to challenge the prosecution's case.

LAW00117 Administrative Law (2017)
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 or actions made can be accounted for.1
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, 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. 2
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.3
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 General’s
Department to indict Thor on New charges. It is a general counsel to also challenge their legality
1 Tom Round, Study Guide for LAW00117 Administrative Law (School of Law & Justice:
Southern Cross University, 2016).
2 Steven Rares, “Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions ; Should There be a 21st-Century
Rethink?”, (speech, UNSW, Federal Court of Australia 15 October 2014),
http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20141015
3 LAW00117 Study Guide (2016), p [14].

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.
STEPS TO BE TAKEN CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER
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 in the process of a decision-
making.
Broad ultra vires:
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 Minister’s 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 Minister’s 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:
a) Whether the Minister acted on evidence;

b) Whether the Minister acted unreasonably;
c) Whether the Minister misused his exercise of discretionary powers
d) Whether the Minister acted out of malice
Narrow ultra vires
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.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
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
4 Ashbridge Investments v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965)1 WLR 1320 at
1326; In the R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore (1965) 1 QB 456,
(1965)488, 490; In Coleen Properties v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1971) 1
WLR 433

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 Minister’s letter of inquiry 15 July 2018.
Preceding the Minister’s 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.
Tentative findings
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.
Misuse of statutory power
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
5 Meadows v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 90 FCR 370, 383 J, 713,
<www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/1706.html>
6 Thompson v Randwick Municipal Corporation, (1950) 81 CLR 87 [9.2.14C],
<www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1950/33>

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.
Irrationality, illogicality, and unreasonableness
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 prosecutor’s arguments in Appellant Two’s 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 Two’s 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 prosecutor‘s argument is also prejudicial.
Bad faith and fraud
7 Jones, Melinda & Douglas, Roger Neil, Douglas and Jones's Administrative Law (Annandale
N.S.W: The Federation Press, 2002), 564.

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.8
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.9
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.
FOR THOR (APPELLANT TWO)
8 Anthony J. Connolly, The Foundations of Australian Public Law, (Cambridge Port Melbourne,
VIC Cambridge University Press, 2017)307.
9 R v Toohey (Aboriginal Land Commissioner); Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151
CLR 170 [2.3.10C]
10 Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 [10.5.25C],
<www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1983/17.html>

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 Minister’s 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.
11
11 Demurrer to evidence, (In BATASnatin Library, n.d,), <https://www.batasnatin.com/law-
library/remedial-law/criminal-procedure/653-demurrer-to-evidence.html>

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>