Tony Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsDonald Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsEdmund Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsRick Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsCitation:[2018] HCA 53Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:08 Nov 2018Case Number:M168/2017, M174/2017, M175/2017, M176/2017Read more

Tony Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsDonald Galloway (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsEdmund Hodges (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsRick Tucker (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsCitation:[2018] HCA 53Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:08 Nov 2018Case Number:M168/2017, M174/2017, M175/2017, M176/2017Read more

The examinations conducted by the ACC were not unlawful, and the prosecution did not derive an improper forensic advantage. The circumstances did not warrant a permanent stay of prosecution as the administration of justice would not fall into disrepute.

Parties
Applicant: Appellants; Respondent: Australian Crime Commission; Respondent: Australian Federal Police; Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Right to Silence, Compulsory Examination, Derivative Use, Forensic Advantage, Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Abuse of Process Right to Silence Compulsory Examination Derivative Use Forensic Advantage Unlawfully Obtained Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellants

Applicant

Australian Crime Commission

Respondent

Australian Federal Police

Respondent

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ACC's examinations were unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution derived a forensic advantage from the examinations
  3. 3 Whether the appellants suffered forensic disadvantage as a result of the examinations

Ratio Decidendi

The examinations conducted by the ACC were not unlawful, and the prosecution did not derive an improper forensic advantage. The circumstances did not warrant a permanent stay of prosecution as the administration of justice would not fall into disrepute.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria are affirmed.
  • The prosecutions are not permanently stayed.