Acting under dictation
📘 Acting Under Dictation
⚖️ What Does "Acting Under Dictation" Mean?
"Acting under dictation" is a legal doctrine in administrative law that prohibits a decision-maker (usually a public authority or government official) from surrendering their lawful discretion by acting under the direction, command, or instruction of another person or body, unless the law specifically allows it.
🧠 In essence, a person or authority given the power to decide must exercise that power independently, not just "rubber-stamp" what someone else tells them to do.
🔍 Legal Principle
The decision-maker must genuinely consider the matter, apply their own judgment, and not blindly follow the instructions of others, such as ministers, departments, or senior officials.
If a decision-maker acts under dictation, the decision is invalid and may be set aside by a court.
✅ When Is It Allowed?
Sometimes legislation expressly allows or requires a decision to be made by or in accordance with another’s direction (e.g., a Minister).
In such cases, following directions does not amount to unlawful dictation.
📚 Key Case Law – Explained in Detail
1. Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500
📝 Facts:
A federal transport official was required to consider whether to grant airline licences. Instead of making an independent decision, the officer acted on instructions from the Minister.
⚖️ Issue:
Was the officer’s decision invalid because he acted under dictation?
🧑⚖️ Held:
Yes. The Full Federal Court ruled that the officer had failed to exercise his own discretion and had acted under ministerial dictation, which made the decision unlawful.
📌 Significance:
This is a leading case on acting under dictation. It reinforces that administrative discretion cannot be bypassed, even in hierarchical government structures.
2. Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383
📝 Facts:
Tanos was denied procedural fairness when the Commissioner of Police acted in a way that seemed to follow external direction without offering Tanos a chance to respond.
⚖️ Issue:
Was there an error in the exercise of discretion?
🧑⚖️ Held:
Yes. The High Court found that administrative decisions must be made fairly and independently, and not at the behest of others.
📌 Significance:
Although the focus was also on natural justice, it reinforced that independent discretion is essential, and acting on external instruction undermines this.
3. Bhardwaj v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2002) 209 CLR 597
📝 Facts:
Bhardwaj challenged a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, arguing that it was predetermined or directed.
⚖️ Issue:
Was the decision invalid because it wasn’t made independently?
🧑⚖️ Held:
The High Court held that a jurisdictional error occurred, and the decision was invalid. If the discretion is not genuinely exercised, it is not legally valid.
📌 Significance:
Clarifies that if a decision-maker pretends to exercise discretion but is in fact following someone else’s decision, it amounts to acting under dictation.
4. Bread Manufacturers of NSW v Evans (1981) 44 FLR 295
📝 Facts:
In this case, a pricing authority made a decision based on what a Minister had said, rather than assessing the situation independently.
⚖️ Issue:
Was the statutory body acting under dictation?
🧑⚖️ Held:
Yes. The court held the decision invalid because the statutory body had abdicated its responsibility and effectively let the Minister decide.
📌 Significance:
Highlights that statutory authorities must act independently even when under political or ministerial pressure.
5. Municipal Council of Sydney v Campbell (1925) 36 CLR 620
📝 Facts:
The Council made a decision to compulsorily acquire land not based on its own evaluation, but due to political influence or suggestions from others.
⚖️ Issue:
Was the decision made under unlawful influence or dictation?
🧑⚖️ Held:
Yes. The High Court ruled that the decision must be based on the Council’s lawful purpose, and acting on improper influence or dictation makes the action invalid.
📌 Significance:
Old but foundational case showing the necessity of independent, good faith exercise of statutory power.
🧾 Summary of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Delegated Power Must Be Exercised Personally | The person or body given the power must use their own judgment. |
| Unlawful Delegation is Invalid | Passing the decision-making responsibility to someone not authorised is unlawful. |
| Ministerial Instructions Can't Override Discretion | Unless specifically authorised by legislation. |
| Genuine Consideration Required | Decision-makers must engage with the matter and not just follow orders. |
| Remedy | Decisions made under dictation can be quashed by judicial review. |
✅ Real-World Relevance
Common in immigration, licensing, planning, and disciplinary proceedings.
Often arises where a junior officer is pressured by a minister or senior bureaucrat.
It safeguards individual rights, transparency, and rule of law in public decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments