Kazal v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2013] NSWSC 53

Kazal v Independent Commission Against Corruption [2013] NSWSC 53

The Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in finding corrupt conduct on the balance of probabilities, using evidence it considered regardless of admissibility in a criminal trial. The statutory scheme does not require the Commission to find facts to the criminal standard or to exclude material inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The finding is not vitiated by the Commission's determination that there was insufficient admissible evidence for prosecution. The application of s 9(1)(a) is hypothetical in nature and does not require or anticipate a successful criminal prosecution.

Parties
Plaintiff: Charif Kazal; Defendant: Independent Commission Against Corruption
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Summons / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Independent Commission Against Corruption, Corrupt Conduct, Jurisdictional Error, Standard of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Administrative Law Independent Commission Against Corruption Corrupt Conduct Jurisdictional Error Standard of Proof Admissibility of 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charif Kazal

Plaintiff

Independent Commission Against Corruption

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summons / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ICAC may make a finding of corrupt conduct under s 9(1)(a) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 absent evidence admissible at a criminal trial or satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the application of the civil standard of proof by the Commission amounts to error or excess of jurisdiction when the corrupt conduct could constitute a criminal offence

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in finding corrupt conduct on the balance of probabilities, using evidence it considered regardless of admissibility in a criminal trial. The statutory scheme does not require the Commission to find facts to the criminal standard or to exclude material inadmissible in criminal proceedings. The finding is not vitiated by the Commission's determination that there was insufficient admissible evidence for prosecution. The application of s 9(1)(a) is hypothetical in nature and does not require or anticipate a successful criminal prosecution.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Summons dismissed with costs