of process', 'frivolous' and 'vexatious' found in Order 67 rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), at [25]-[33].[1]
13. The above analysis applies equally to the powers found in s 101 of the ART Act.
CONSIDERATION
The events of 31 October 2024
14. The AFP Incident Report (IR) and supporting material provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal indicates that on 31 October 2024 uniformed AFP officers were called to attend the Perth International Airport to assist the ABF with a passenger who refused to complete an incoming passenger card. That passenger was the Applicant, who had recently arrived on a flight from Vietnam.
15. This material demonstrates that the Applicant was subject to a baggage examination conducted by the ABF and that he was also issued with an infringement notice under s 243X of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (Customs Act) as an alternative to prosecution for an offence under s 234AB(3) of the Customs Act regarding unauthorised use of a mobile telephone, which the Applicant declined to accept and the Tribunal infers that he has subsequently been charged with under summons.
16. The ABF material released under FOI includes the following notes regarding their interaction with the applicant on 31 October 2024, as recorded in their intelligence system:
Pax travelling from Vietnam.
Pax refused to fill out IPC.
Pax was detained under s 219ZJD of the Customs Act.
Pax was not asked the 10 standard baggage questions.
Pax was carrying 1 x bag.
100% baggage examination conducted.
Pax was on his mobile phone whilst examination was being conducted.
Pax was directed multiple times not to use a mobile phone.
Nothing of ABF interest located in the bag.
- ↑ See also Frigger v Parkyn [2021] FCA 224 at [10]–[13]; Re Young [2020] HCA 13; (2020) 94 ALJR 448 at [11]–[13].
Page 8 of 12
