Appellant was afforded fair procedures prior to decision to make exclusion order

Power J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision of the High Court refusing the appellant’s application for an order of certiorari quashing an ‘exclusion order’ made against him by the first named respondent pursuant to s.47 of the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 (‘the Act’) and an order of certiorari quashing the consent given by the second named respondent to the first named respondent, in respect of the making of the exclusion order together with all other reliefs sought by the appellant in his application for judicial review - the appellant was involved in the practice of live animal baiting when training greyhounds whilst he lived in Australia - the appellant received a 10 year ban, with 5 years suspended on the basis he be of good behaviour, of his Dog Attendant Licence following disciplinary proceedings carried out in Australia - Greyhound Racing Victoria sent the papers concerning the proceedings to the first respondent - the appellant applied to the first respondent for authorisation in the form of a licence to work as a kennel hand – this application was refused following a meeting in which oral submissions were made by the appellant on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person within the meaning of the relevant regulation - the first respondent also carried out a separate investigation under s. 43 of the Act - following considerable correspondence between the parties, an exclusion order was made by the first respondent which prevented the appellant from being on any greyhound race track; being at any authorised coursing meeting; and being at any public sale of greyhounds - consent to the order was given by the second respondent - whether an investigation pursuant to s.43 took place sufficient to ground the proposal to make the exclusion order pursuant to s. 47 - whether the procedure adopted by the Board was a fair one and sufficient to satisfy the requirements of natural and constitutional justice as identified and applied in the case law - the appellant was not deprived of his constitutionally protected right to fair procedures in the context of the s.43 investigation - appeal dismissed.