AA v Board of the Australian Crime Commission

The applicant, AA, sought to challenge the summons issued by the examiner under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth). The applicant argued that there was insufficient material before the examiner to satisfy the requirement under section 28(1A) of the Act that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue the summons. The central issue before the court was whether section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) imposed an obligation on an examiner to provide written reasons for issuing a summons to an examinee. The court was required to determine whether the examiner had to give reasons to the examinee or provide a written record of his reasons to the examinee.

The court found that section 25D of the Acts Interpretation Act did not impose an obligation on an examiner to provide written reasons for his decision to issue a summons. The court held that section 28 of the ACC Act does not require an examiner to give reasons to an examinee or to provide a written record of his reasons to an examinee. The court noted that the purpose of section 28(1A) was to focus and enhance decision-making and to provide an accountability mechanism by requiring the creation of an audit trail. The court emphasised that the legislative judgment not to provide a right to reasons was deliberate, and such a right would be an alien presence in the statutory scheme.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the examination of the applicant. The court held that the examiner was not required to provide written reasons for his decision to issue the summons to the applicant. The court found that the examiner had sufficient material before him to be satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue the summons.