Campbell v Australian Crime Commission [2013] FCA 690

Campbell v Australian Crime Commission [2013] FCA 690

Interlocutory relief was refused because the applicants did not identify any basis for the claim that the examiner or respondent failed to have proper regard to s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), that the applicants would be denied protections available under that Act, that the examinations were likely to be conducted unlawfully, or that the statutory protections were inadequate. The applicants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case and did not satisfy the balance of convenience requirement. There was also no demonstrated basis to suppress the applicants' names.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Decisions to Issue Australian Crime Commission Examination Summonses / Urgent Oral Application for Interlocutory Relief Seeking a Stay of Examinations and Suppression of Applicants' Names
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed; originating application transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; costs of the interlocutory application to be the respondent's costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'australian Crime Commission Examination Summonses' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'suppression Orders' 'self Incrimination Protections']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'australian Crime Commission Examination Summonses' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'suppression Orders' 'self Incrimination Protections']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Decisions to Issue Australian Crime Commission Examination Summonses / Urgent Oral Application for Interlocutory Relief Seeking a Stay of Examinations and Suppression of Applicants' Names

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants established a prima facie case for final relief against the decisions to issue summonses under s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory relief staying the examinations.' 'Whether it was necessary or appropriate to suppress the names of the applicants.' 'Whether the applicants identified a basis to suggest the examiner or respondent failed to have proper regard to s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) or would conduct the examinations unlawfully.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory relief was refused because the applicants did not identify any basis for the claim that the examiner or respondent failed to have proper regard to s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), that the applicants would be denied protections available under that Act, that the examinations were likely to be conducted unlawfully, or that the statutory protections were inadequate. The applicants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case and did not satisfy the balance of convenience requirement. There was also no demonstrated basis to suppress the applicants' names.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed; originating application transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia; costs of the interlocutory application to be the respondent's costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief made orally on 10 July 2013 is dismissed.' 'The originating application filed on 10 July 2013 is transferred to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.' "The costs of the application for interlocutory relief be the respondent's costs in the cause."]