Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered questions arising from an application by Assistant Commissioner Condon of the Queensland Police Service seeking a declaration under the *Criminal Organisation Act 2009* (Qld) that the Finks Motorcycle Club, Gold Coast Chapter, and Pompano Pty Ltd constituted a criminal organisation. The dispute concerned the validity of various provisions of the Act, particularly those relating to the use of "criminal intelligence" in closed hearings, and their compatibility with Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which governs the institutional integrity of State courts.

The legal issues before the Court included whether sections of the Act requiring closed criminal intelligence hearings, the exclusion of respondents and their legal representatives from parts of those hearings, and the prohibition on calling informants as witnesses, infringed upon the procedural fairness owed to respondents. Furthermore, the Court had to determine if these provisions, by potentially limiting the ability of the Supreme Court of Queensland to fully scrutinise evidence or provide a fair hearing, were repugnant to or inconsistent with the continued institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, and whether the question of an "unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community" was a suitable matter for judicial determination. The Court also considered whether other sections of the Act prevented the Supreme Court from extending time for respondents to file their responses.

The Court reasoned that while the impugned provisions of the Act imposed significant restrictions on the usual adversarial process, they did not fundamentally impair the essential characteristics of the Supreme Court. The Court found that the provisions did not transgress constitutional limits because the Supreme Court retained its inherent jurisdiction to stay a substantive application where practical unfairness to a respondent became manifest. This capacity to stay proceedings was considered sufficient to preserve the institutional integrity of the Court and ensure that the criminal intelligence provisions were saved from constitutional invalidity. The Court also determined that the nature of the judgment required by the Act was suitable for judicial determination and that other provisions did not prevent the extension of time for respondents.

The Court answered each of the substantive questions referred in the Special Case in the negative, finding the impugned provisions of the *Criminal Organisation Act 2009* (Qld) to be constitutionally valid. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the Special Case.