AB (a pseudonym) & Anor v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by AB and CD (pseudonyms) against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellants sought to challenge the validity of notices issued by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) under section 106 of the *Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2020* (Vic). These notices required the appellants to produce documents and attend for examination in relation to an IBAC investigation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the notices issued by IBAC were invalid on the grounds that they were issued for an improper purpose, specifically that the investigation was not being conducted for the purpose of identifying corruption or misconduct as defined by the relevant legislation, but rather for an ulterior purpose. The appellants argued that the notices were an abuse of process and therefore unlawful.

The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Their Honours held that the appellants had failed to establish that the notices were issued for an improper purpose. The Court affirmed that the onus was on the appellants to demonstrate that the purpose for which the notices were issued was not within the scope of IBAC's statutory powers. The Court found that the evidence did not support the assertion that IBAC had acted with an ulterior motive, and that the investigation was being conducted for the purposes contemplated by the *Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment Act 2020* (Vic). The Court reiterated the principle that judicial review of administrative action is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself.