FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Anderson v XLVII [2014] FCA 1089
Continue reading Anderson v XLVII
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Anderson v XLVII [2014] FCA 1089
- Case
- [2014] FCA 1089
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court delved into the legislative framework surrounding the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the nature of contempt under the ACC. It explored whether section 80 of the Judiciary Act, which restricts the Court's jurisdiction over certain offences, applied to contempt of the ACC. Additionally, the Court examined whether contempt of the ACC constituted an "offence" as contemplated by section 80. The analysis included a review of previous judicial interpretations and legislative intent, particularly regarding the applicability of the Criminal Code to contempt of the ACC. The Court concluded that section 80 was not infringed and did not necessitate a definitive stance on whether contempt of the ACC was an "offence" within the meaning of section 80.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the respondent's challenges to its jurisdiction. The Court found that the inherent power of the Court and the power under section 31 of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) to punish contempt was limited to the protection of the Court’s own powers and authority, and did not extend to contempts of other entities such as the ACC. Furthermore, the Court held that section 31 of the Federal Court Act did not provide a basis for its jurisdiction to punish contempts of the ACC. Consequently, the Court ruled that it had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the examiner’s application concerning the respondent's refusal to answer questions.
The final order of the Court was that the respondent's challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the application of the applicant were dismissed. The Court indicated that it would hear from the parties regarding the costs of the proceedings and the arrangements to be made for the trial of the action. This decision clarified the jurisdictional boundaries of the Federal Court in relation to applications concerning contempt of the ACC, reaffirming the limited scope of the Court's inherent and statutory powers in this context.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent’s challenges to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine the application of the applicant are dismissed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Section 34B(6) establishes a fiction in relation to the determination of whether a person is in contempt of the ACC. It provides, that for that purpose, Ch 2 of the Criminal Code applies “as if” contempt of the ACC were an offence. Ch 2 of the Criminal Code contains the general principles of criminal responsibility which apply to any offence (cl 2.1). In order to facilitate the application of Ch 2 of the Code, s 34B(6)(b) specifies that Ch 2 applies as if references in the Code to a person being criminally responsible for an offence are references to a person being responsible for contempt of the ACC. As indicated earlier, the effect of s 34A, s 34B(6) and Ch 2 of the Criminal Code is to establish the elements of a contempt of the ACC. The special operation On 4 September 2013, the Board of the ACC made an instrument under s 7C of the ACC Act entitled “Australian Crime Commission Special Operation Authorisation and Determination (Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs) 2013” (the Determination). The Determination authorised an intelligence operation to determine whether groups described as “Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs” had engaged, were engaging, or may in the future engage, in federally relevant criminal activity, including serious drug offences contrary to Pt 9.1 of the Criminal Code, the unlawful importation, possession or dealing in illegal drugs within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), cross-border firearms trafficking in contravention of Pt 9.4 of the Criminal Code, and money laundering within the meaning of s 81 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth). By a summons dated 22 January 2014, the applicant summonsed the respondent to appear before him for examination for the purposes of the special operation to which the Determination referred. A copy of the Determination was attached to the summons.Not a contempt of the Court’s own powers and authority The respondent’s first contention is that the inherent power of the Court, and the power under s 31 of the FCA Act, to punish for contempt is available only for the protection of the Court’s own power and authority. This follows from the power being an attribute of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, ie, “a power of self-protection or a power incidental to the function of superintending the administration of justice”: Re Colina at [16], [108]-[109]. This limitation is also made plain by s 31(1) of the FCA Act which refers to the Court’s power to punish contempts “of its power and authority”. For the reasons given earlier, this contention of the respondent should be accepted. Neither the inherent power of the Court nor s 31 of the FCA Act permit the Court to punish contempts of other entities or of the Executive considered more generally. Section 31 of the FCA Act cannot be regarded as a source of this Court’s jurisdiction to punish contempts of the ACC. I note that in X v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (No 2) (1987) 9 NSWLR 575 at 603-4, Mahoney JA referred to the possibility that the jurisdiction of a superior court with respect to contempt may also extend to contempts of courts or tribunals over which the court has a supervisory role. That question does not arise for consideration presently.Legislative power and punitive detention