X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

Division 2 of Part II of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) does not authorise an examiner appointed under s 46B(1) to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the charged offence; the statute neither expressly nor by necessary implication overrides the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be compelled to assist the prosecution in this way.

Parties
Plaintiff: X7; First Defendant: Australian Crime Commission; Second Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Original Jurisdiction Stated Case / Decision on Stated Questions
Outcome
The ACC Act does not authorise compulsory examination of a charged person about the subject matter of the charge; question 2 (invalidity under Ch III) does not arise.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Examination, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Right to Silence, Accusatorial Process, Fair Trial, Principle of Legality, Separation of Powers, Use Immunity, Derivative Use, Contempt of Court
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Statutory Interpretation Compulsory Examination Privilege Against Self Incrimination Right to Silence Accusatorial Process Fair Trial +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X7

Plaintiff

Australian Crime Commission

First Defendant

Commonwealth of Australia

Second Defendant

Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Queensland

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Original Jurisdiction Stated Case / Decision on Stated Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Div 2 of Pt II of the ACC Act empower an examiner to conduct an examination of a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence where that examination concerns the subject matter of the offence so charged?
  2. 2 If so, is Div 2 of Pt II of the ACC Act invalid to that extent as contrary to Ch III of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

Division 2 of Part II of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) does not authorise an examiner appointed under s 46B(1) to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the charged offence; the statute neither expressly nor by necessary implication overrides the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be compelled to assist the prosecution in this way.

Court Disposition

The ACC Act does not authorise compulsory examination of a charged person about the subject matter of the charge; question 2 (invalidity under Ch III) does not arise.

Orders

  • Answer to Question 1: The ACC Act does not authorise an examiner appointed under s 46B(1) to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the charged offence.
  • Answer to Question 2: This question does not arise.