B v Australian Crime Commission [2011] FCA 1046

B v Australian Crime Commission [2011] FCA 1046

The application failed because the reference in Schedule 1 to a non-existent clause 4 was a mere slip and did not make the Determination uncertain or invalid; the second respondent's powers as an examiner under the State Act did not depend on being listed in Schedule 2 as a participant in the investigation; and the Court was bound by Australian Crime Commission v OK to reject the contention that the examination should be restrained because of pending criminal charges.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1901 (cth) and Ss 5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Declarations and Injunctions Concerning Decisions and Conduct of the Australian Crime Commission and an Examiner / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['australian Crime Commission Special Investigation' 'validity of Determination' 'validity of Summons' 'statutory Interpretation' 'uncertainty as a Ground of Review' 'examination While Criminal Charges Pending']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'criminal Law and Procedure'] ['australian Crime Commission Special Investigation' 'validity of Determination' 'validity of Summons' 'statutory Interpretation' 'uncertainty as a Ground of Review' 'examination While Criminal Charges Pending']

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

Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1901 (cth) and Ss 5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) for Declarations and Injunctions Concerning Decisions and Conduct of the Australian Crime Commission and an Examiner / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Determination was invalid because Schedule 1 referred to allegations mentioned in clauses 3 and 4 although there was no clause 4, allegedly failing to satisfy s 8(4)(a) of the Australian Crime Commission (South Australia) Act 2004 (SA).' 'Whether the Summons was invalid because the examiner was not identified in Schedule 2 as within the class or classes of persons to participate in the ACC State special investigation under s 8(1)(b) of the Australian Crime Commission (South Australia) Act 2004 (SA).' 'Whether the examiner should be restrained from questioning the applicant about matters relevant to pending criminal charges in South Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the reference in Schedule 1 to a non-existent clause 4 was a mere slip and did not make the Determination uncertain or invalid; the second respondent's powers as an examiner under the State Act did not depend on being listed in Schedule 2 as a participant in the investigation; and the Court was bound by Australian Crime Commission v OK to reject the contention that the examination should be restrained because of pending criminal charges.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application."]