Apm21 v Lusty

The applicant, Apm21, sought interlocutory relief to restrain the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) from enforcing a summons issued to the applicant. The summons required the applicant to give evidence before the ACIC concerning specified criminal activity, as defined by the Special Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Investigation Determination (Highest Risk Criminal Targets) 2020. The ACIC opposed the application, arguing that the public interest in its efficient operation favoured the refusal of interlocutory relief.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the summons and the related determination were invalid due to being overly broad and failing to specify the general nature of the matters for questioning. Additionally, the court had to determine if the ACIC board's determination was affected by jurisdictional error, arising from an inability to ascertain the scope of the investigation. The court was also required to consider the applicant's prospects of establishing a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in granting or refusing the interlocutory relief.

The court's reasoning focused on the requirements for valid administrative decision-making and the principles governing interlocutory relief. It considered whether the ACIC had acted within its statutory powers and whether the determination provided sufficient clarity regarding the investigation's scope. The court applied the legal principles relating to jurisdictional error, which occurs when a decision-maker acts outside the limits of their authority, and the tests for granting interlocutory injunctions, including the need for a prima facie case and a favourable balance of convenience.