XX v Attorney General of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 658

XX v Attorney General of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 658

There was no actual or reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudgment by the Assistant Commissioner; the principles against bias, as well as the Hardiman principles, were not breached in a way that vitiated the decision; consideration of counsel assisting's submissions was not an irrelevant matter, and there was no material error of law. The challenge to the public hearing decision must fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'apprehension of Bias' 'prejudgment' 'tribunal Procedure' 'public Hearings' 'investigative Commissions']
['administrative Law'] ['natural Justice' 'apprehension of Bias' 'prejudgment' 'tribunal Procedure' 'public Hearings' 'investigative Commissions']

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

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Assistant Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission should have disqualified himself on the basis of apprehended bias or prejudgment' 'Whether there was a breach of the Hardiman principles by the investigative body' 'Whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account in the decision to conduct hearings in public' 'Whether there was an error of law in the understanding and application of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (CARA)']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no actual or reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudgment by the Assistant Commissioner; the principles against bias, as well as the Hardiman principles, were not breached in a way that vitiated the decision; consideration of counsel assisting's submissions was not an irrelevant matter, and there was no material error of law. The challenge to the public hearing decision must fail.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Summons dismissed' "The plaintiff pay the third defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings as agreed or assessed"]