AB v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

The case of AB v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission involves the applicants, AB and CD, challenging a decision of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to not provide certain documents and to deny a request to seek external assistance in responding to a draft special report. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants contend that IBAC did not comply with its natural justice obligations by refusing to provide the transcripts of examinations of other witnesses and by denying the request to seek external assistance in preparing a response to the draft report.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the judge erred in finding that IBAC did not breach natural justice obligations and whether the judge misinterpreted the meaning of ‘adverse material’ as it appears in section 162(3) of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. The applicants argued that IBAC failed to provide natural justice by not supplying the transcripts of examinations of other witnesses and by refusing to allow AB to seek external assistance in preparing a response to the draft report. The applicants submitted that these actions impaired their ability to respond adequately to the draft report.

The court considered the obligations of natural justice as they apply both at common law and under the statutory scheme of the IBAC Act. The court held that the judge was correct in finding that IBAC did not breach natural justice obligations. The court found that the judge had correctly interpreted the term ‘adverse material’ in section 162(3) of the IBAC Act, which requires IBAC to provide an opportunity for a person to respond to adverse material in a draft special report. The court noted that the applicants did not provide evidence to substantiate their claim that the refusal to provide the transcripts and the denial of external assistance prejudiced their ability to respond to the draft report. As such, the court found no error in the judge’s reasoning or interpretation of the statutory obligations.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court held that the applicants did not establish that the judge erred in his findings or interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was not allowed, and the orders of the judge remain in place.