DPP v Attallah [2001] NSWCA 171

DPP v Attallah [2001] NSWCA 171

Although the accused's admissions made at the ICAC hearing on 21 October 1997 were not inadmissible under the ICAC Act, the Local Court had a discretion under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 to exclude them for unfairness. However, it was not open to find unfairness solely from the fact that the admissions were obtained under a statutory obligation to answer questions and for a purpose sanctioned by Parliament. Bergin J's orders and the Local Court orders were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for determination according to law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Concerning Admissibility of Admissions in Prosecutions for Offences Against S 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 / Appeal by Leave to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Bergin J's Dismissal of an Appeal From the Local Court; Application for Leave to Cross Appeal on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions for Unfairness' 'compulsory Examination Before Icac' 'false or Misleading Evidence Before Icac' 'justices Act Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'administrative Law'] ['admissions' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions for Unfairness' 'compulsory Examination Before Icac' 'false or Misleading Evidence Before Icac' 'justices Act Appeal']

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

Criminal Appeal Concerning Admissibility of Admissions in Prosecutions for Offences Against S 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 / Appeal by Leave to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From Bergin J's Dismissal of an Appeal From the Local Court; Application for Leave to Cross Appeal on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Local Court could refuse under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 to admit the accused's admissions made during an ICAC hearing on 21 October 1997." 'Whether use of admissions obtained under a statutory obligation to answer questions was unfair solely because of the manner in which and purpose for which the evidence was obtained, where that manner and purpose were sanctioned by the ICAC Act.' "Whether Bergin J erred in dismissing the DPP's appeal on the basis of findings about inducement and involuntariness." 'Whether the accused should have leave to cross-appeal against the refusal of costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the accused's admissions made at the ICAC hearing on 21 October 1997 were not inadmissible under the ICAC Act, the Local Court had a discretion under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 to exclude them for unfairness. However, it was not open to find unfairness solely from the fact that the admissions were obtained under a statutory obligation to answer questions and for a purpose sanctioned by Parliament. Bergin J's orders and the Local Court orders were therefore set aside and the matter remitted for determination according to law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application for leave to cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The judgment and orders of Bergin J and the Local Court should be set aside.' 'The proceedings should be remitted to the Local Court for determination according to law.' 'The application for leave to cross-appeal should be refused.' "The accused should pay the DPP's costs before Bergin J and in this Court."]