Dalton v NSW Crime Commission [2006] HCA 17

Dalton v NSW Crime Commission [2006] HCA 17

Section 76 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) is supported by s 51(xxiv) of the Constitution; 'civil and criminal process' is not confined to court process but extends to investigative process issued by authorised non-court State bodies. Thus, leave granted by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to serve a subpoena issued by the NSW Crime Commission upon an individual in Victoria was valid under Commonwealth law.

Parties
Appellant: Leigh William Dalton; Respondent: NSW Crime Commission; Respondent: Commonwealth Attorney-General; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service and Execution of Process, Investigative Powers of Tribunals, Extra Territorial Effect of State Process, Interpretation of S 51(xxiv) of the Constitution, Validity of Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (cth)
Constitutional Law Service and Execution of Process Investigative Powers of Tribunals Extra Territorial Effect of State Process Interpretation of S 51(xxiv) of the Constitution Validity of Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (cth)

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leigh William Dalton

Appellant

NSW Crime Commission

Respondent

Commonwealth Attorney-General

Respondent

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 76 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) is a valid exercise of power under s 51(xxiv) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether 'civil and criminal process' in s 51(xxiv) includes investigative process of non-court State bodies
  3. 3 Whether service of a subpoena issued by a State investigative body (NSW Crime Commission) can validly be effected interstate under federal law

Ratio Decidendi

Section 76 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) is supported by s 51(xxiv) of the Constitution; 'civil and criminal process' is not confined to court process but extends to investigative process issued by authorised non-court State bodies. Thus, leave granted by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to serve a subpoena issued by the NSW Crime Commission upon an individual in Victoria was valid under Commonwealth law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the NSW Crime Commission.