XCIV v The Australian Crime Commission [2015] FCA 586

XCIV v The Australian Crime Commission [2015] FCA 586

The issuance of the summons and the validity of the Board’s Determination complied with all statutory requirements. Any typographical errors in the summons did not amount to non-compliance with mandatory conditions; the examiner’s formation of satisfaction and recording of reasons was factually adequate; the Determination’s breadth fell within the scope permitted by the statute and did not represent an impermissible delegation or excessive, unconstrained exercise of power; and no constitutional invalidity or jurisdictional error was established.

Parties
Applicant: XCIV; First Respondent: Australian Crime Commission; Second Respondent: G.E. (Tim) Sage; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Administrative Law / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Australian Crime Commission—determination and Special Investigation, Validity of Summons Under Statutory Power, Interpretation of Statutory Requirements for Administrative Decisions, Procedural Joinder of Parties, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Administrative Law Criminal Law Practice and Procedure Constitutional Law Australian Crime Commission—determination and Special Investigation Validity of Summons Under Statutory Power Interpretation of Statutory Requirements for Administrative Decisions Procedural Joinder of Parties +1 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 8 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XCIV

Applicant

Australian Crime Commission

First Respondent

G.E. (Tim) Sage

Second Respondent

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Administrative Law / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the examiner failed to comply with s 28(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) in issuing the summons.
  2. 2 Whether the examiner could be satisfied it was reasonable in all the circumstances to issue the summons as required by s 28(1A).
  3. 3 Whether the summons failed to adequately state the general nature of the matters in relation to which the applicant was to be questioned (s 28(3)).

Ratio Decidendi

The issuance of the summons and the validity of the Board’s Determination complied with all statutory requirements. Any typographical errors in the summons did not amount to non-compliance with mandatory conditions; the examiner’s formation of satisfaction and recording of reasons was factually adequate; the Determination’s breadth fell within the scope permitted by the statute and did not represent an impermissible delegation or excessive, unconstrained exercise of power; and no constitutional invalidity or jurisdictional error was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the respondents, save for the costs the subject of Order 3.