Administrative Law—Natural justice—Criminal Justice Commission—Requirement to report to Parliamentary Committee, Speaker of Legislative Assembly and Minister—Report on gaming machine concerns and regulations—Recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in State—No opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports—Whether duty of procedural fairness—Whether right or interest adversely affected—Legitimate expectation—Mandamus—Certiorari—Declaration—Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)—Gaming Machine Act 1991 (Q.), s. 6.16(1).

Decisions

MASON C.J., DAWSON, TOOHEY AND GAUDRON JJ. The first appellant, Leonard Hastings Ainsworth, is the Managing Director of the second appellant, Ainsworth Nominees Pty. Limited. Ainsworth Nominees Pty. Limited manufactures and supplies gaming or poker machines.

2. The respondent, the Criminal Justice Commission ("the Commission"), is a corporation constituted under s.2.1(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Q.) ("the Act") with the functions and responsibilities set out in ss.2.14 and 2.15. Broadly speaking, it is charged with a duty to monitor, review, co-ordinate and initiate reform of the administration of criminal justice in Queensland (s.2.14(1)(a)) and, through its organizational units, with investigating the incidence of official misconduct (s.2.20(2)(a)), researching the problems of the administration of criminal justice (s.2.45(1)(a)), co-ordinating the activities of other agencies concerned with the administration of criminal justice (s.2.45(1)(b)), gathering intelligence concerning criminal activities and persons (s.2.47) and protecting witnesses: s.2.51.

3. The Act provides in Pt IV for the establishment and appointment of a parliamentary body, called the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee ("the Parliamentary Committee"): s.4.1(1). Its purpose is to inform the Legislative Assembly on the activities of the Commission and on matters pertinent thereto: s.1.3(b). Its functions and powers are set out in s.4.8.

4. In January 1990, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, as chairman of a Cabinet sub-committee, sought the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Commission with respect to the implementation of a Cabinet decision to introduce poker machines into that State. It was agreed between the Chairman of the Commission and the Deputy Premier that the Commission would advise as to "areas of likely difficulty". It was understood, it seems, that the Commission would report on the matter pursuant to s.2.14(2)(c) and in accordance with s.2.18 of the Act and that is what in due course happened. It may be that it was also understood that the Parliamentary Committee would conduct public hearings after it received the Commission's report. That has also happened.

5. Subject to an exception which does not bear on the present matter, s.2.18(1) provides:

"... a report of the Commission ... shall be furnished - (a) to the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee; (b) to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly; and

(c) to the Minister".

If the Assembly is not sitting, the Speaker is required to deliver the report to the Clerk of the Parliament and order that it be printed: s.2.18(3). Once printed, the report is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission

Details

AGLC: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10
Case: [1992] HCA 10
Decision Date: 9 April 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Ainsworth against a decision of the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) in Queensland. The dispute concerned the CJC's power to compel Mr. Ainsworth to attend before it and answer questions concerning his alleged involvement in illegal gambling activities. Mr. Ainsworth sought to challenge the validity of the summons issued by the CJC.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the CJC had the statutory authority to compel the attendance and questioning of Mr. Ainsworth, a person suspected of involvement in criminal activity, under the *Criminal Justice Act 1989* (Qld). This involved an interpretation of the powers conferred upon the CJC by the Act, particularly in relation to its investigative functions and the protection of individual rights.

The Court examined the provisions of the *Criminal Justice Act 1989* (Qld) and concluded that the CJC possessed broad investigative powers, including the power to summon individuals to give evidence. The majority held that the Act did not confer upon the CJC a discretion to refuse to exercise its powers of compulsion, even if it might be inconvenient or embarrassing for the person summoned. The Court affirmed that the legislative intent was to grant the CJC significant authority to investigate corruption and organised crime.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the CJC's power to issue the summons and compel Mr. Ainsworth's attendance and questioning.

Orders