New South Wales Crime Commission v D181 [2015] NSWSC 1836

New South Wales Crime Commission v D181 [2015] NSWSC 1836

The Court granted leave because the supporting affidavit met s 35A(4) by stating the authorised officer's requisite belief and suspicion and the grounds for them, those grounds were supported by cogent evidence, and the Court was satisfied under s 35A(5) that any prejudicial effect likely to arise to the defendant's trial was outweighed by the public interest in using the Commission's powers to ensure the noticed matter was fully investigated. The discretion to grant leave was exercised subject to safeguards and conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application by the New South Wales Crime Commission for Leave Under S 35 a of the Crime Commission Act 2012 to Take Evidence From an Accused Person About the Offences / Summons Heard Ex Parte in Closed Court
Outcome
Leave granted to the New South Wales Crime Commission under s 35A of the Crime Commission Act 2012, subject to conditions, with suppression and non-publication orders continued.
Legal Topics
['crime Commission Powers' 'examination of Accused Persons' 'production of Documents or Things' 'prejudicial Effect to Criminal Trial' 'public Interest' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']
['procedure' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['crime Commission Powers' 'examination of Accused Persons' 'production of Documents or Things' 'prejudicial Effect to Criminal Trial' 'public Interest' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders']

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

Ex Parte Application by the New South Wales Crime Commission for Leave Under S 35 a of the Crime Commission Act 2012 to Take Evidence From an Accused Person About the Offences / Summons Heard Ex Parte in Closed Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the supporting affidavit established the requisite belief and suspicion under s 35A(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 and the grounds on which they were based.' "Whether any prejudicial effect likely to arise to the defendant's trial from the proposed questioning or requirement was outweighed by the public interest in using the Commission's powers to ensure the noticed matter was fully investigated." 'Whether leave should be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions under s 35A(6) of the Crime Commission Act 2012.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted leave because the supporting affidavit met s 35A(4) by stating the authorised officer's requisite belief and suspicion and the grounds for them, those grounds were supported by cogent evidence, and the Court was satisfied under s 35A(5) that any prejudicial effect likely to arise to the defendant's trial was outweighed by the public interest in using the Commission's powers to ensure the noticed matter was fully investigated. The discretion to grant leave was exercised subject to safeguards and conditions.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the New South Wales Crime Commission under s 35A of the Crime Commission Act 2012, subject to conditions, with suppression and non-publication orders continued.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the New South Wales Crime Commission pursuant to s 35A of the Crime Commission Act 2012 to question the defendant under s 24 of the Crime Commission Act 2012 at a hearing before the Commission.' 'Leave granted to the New South Wales Crime Commission pursuant to s 35A of the Crime Commission Act...