'D' v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 660

'D' v Australian Crime Commission [2006] FCA 660

The application failed because binding Full Court authority disposed of the constitutional challenge to s 4A and the challenge to the 2005 amendment instrument; the summons either disclosed the general nature of the matters for examination or the examiner had validly formed the s 28(3) satisfaction that further disclosure would prejudice the special investigation; and the Board validly determined the class or classes of persons to participate in the special investigation by cl 6 and Schedule 2 of the first Instrument, because the written authorisation requirement by the CEO or heads of specified agencies confined rather than altered the classes and did not amount to an impermissible...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application for an Order of Review Challenging the Validity of a Summons Issued Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['australian Crime Commission Special Investigation' 'summons to Appear Before an Examiner' 'determination of Class or Classes of Persons to Participate in an Investigation' 'alleged Impermissible Delegation' 'validity of ACC Instruments' 'section 28(3) Notice Requirements']
['administrative Law' 'constitutional Law' 'criminal Investigation Powers'] ['australian Crime Commission Special Investigation' 'summons to Appear Before an Examiner' 'determination of Class or Classes of Persons to Participate in an Investigation' 'alleged Impermissible Delegation' 'validity of ACC Instruments' 'section 28(3) Notice Requirements']

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

Administrative Law Application for an Order of Review Challenging the Validity of a Summons Issued Under S 28 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (cth) / Final Hearing; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 4A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) was beyond Commonwealth legislative power and invalid.' 'Whether the 2005 amendment instrument was a valid exercise of power under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).' 'Whether the Board failed to determine the class or classes of persons to participate in the investigation within the meaning of s 7C(1)(e).' 'Whether the Board impermissibly delegated its s 7C(1)(e) function to the CEO or to heads of nominated agencies.' 'Whether the summons complied with s 28(3) by setting out, so far as reasonably practicable, the general nature of the matters in relation to which the examiner intended to question the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because binding Full Court authority disposed of the constitutional challenge to s 4A and the challenge to the 2005 amendment instrument; the summons either disclosed the general nature of the matters for examination or the examiner had validly formed the s 28(3) satisfaction that further disclosure would prejudice the special investigation; and the Board validly determined the class or classes of persons to participate in the special investigation by cl 6 and Schedule 2 of the first Instrument, because the written authorisation requirement by the CEO or heads of specified agencies confined rather than altered the classes and did not amount to an impermissible...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applicant have leave to amend the amended application in terms of the document entitled Further Amended Application for an Order of Review filed on 8 December 2005.' 'The application is dismissed.']