B v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1314

B v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1314

Section 4A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) was valid for the reasons given in S v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1310. The applicant did not show that the summons failed to comply with s 28(3), because it gave a general indication of the matters about which he might be questioned and, without knowing the examiner's information, the Court could not be satisfied that further detail was reasonably practicable. The reference to tax avoidance schemes was not limited to Victorian duty law and could include Commonwealth matters, so the summons was not shown to be outside s 28(7).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) And/or S 16 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Challenging Validity of Legislation and an ACC Summons / Final Hearing and Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['australian Crime Commission Summons for Examination' 'validity of Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) S 4 A' 'federally Relevant Criminal Activity' 'general Nature of Matters for Examination Under S 28(3)' 'purpose of Special ACC Operation/investigation Under S 28(7)']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['australian Crime Commission Summons for Examination' 'validity of Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) S 4 A' 'federally Relevant Criminal Activity' 'general Nature of Matters for Examination Under S 28(3)' 'purpose of Special ACC Operation/investigation Under S 28(7)']

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 1903 (cth) And/or S 16 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) Challenging Validity of Legislation and an ACC Summons / Final Hearing and Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), or alternatively s 4A of the Act, was invalid as beyond Commonwealth power.' 'Whether the summons dated 10 May 2005 complied with s 28(3) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) by setting out, so far as reasonably practicable, the general nature of the matters for examination.' 'Whether the summons was contrary to s 28(7) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) because it required evidence about tax avoidance schemes said not to fall within the special investigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) was valid for the reasons given in S v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1310. The applicant did not show that the summons failed to comply with s 28(3), because it gave a general indication of the matters about which he might be questioned and, without knowing the examiner's information, the Court could not be satisfied that further detail was reasonably practicable. The reference to tax avoidance schemes was not limited to Victorian duty law and could include Commonwealth matters, so the summons was not shown to be outside s 28(7).

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The applicant to pay to the respondent costs of the application.']