B v Australian Crime Commission - [2005] FCA 1314

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
B v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1314
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - summons for examination issued under s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – whether summons complied with essential requirement governing its issue under s 28(3) and described general nature of matters for examination
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – validity of Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – validity of s 4A of the Act – where Act gives ACC power to investigate state offences with a federal aspect – whether definition of ‘federal aspect’ in s 4A ensures Act is supported by a federal head of power
Australian CrimeCommission Act 2002 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)
Victorian Duties Act 2000 (Vic)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth)
Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)
S v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1310 applied
P v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 55 discussed
Harper v Costigan (1983) 72 FLR 140 cited
National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296 cited
Calder v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCA 911 cited
Pridecraft Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 213 ALR 450 cited
Macquarie Finance Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2004) 210 ALR 508 cited
Commissioner of Taxation v Sleight (2004) 136 FCR 211 cited
Electricity Supply Industry Superannuation (QLD) Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2003) 199 ALR 339 cited
B v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
VID 604 of 2005
MANSFIELD J
16 SEPTEMBER 2005
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 604 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

B
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The applicant to pay to the respondent costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 604 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

B
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On 10 May 2005 the respondent, the Australian Crime Commission (the ACC), served on the applicant a summons to attend before an examiner to give evidence in relation to:
(i)his knowledge of and involvement with various named corporate entities;
(ii)his knowledge of various named persons and their associates;
(iii)his knowledge of and/or involvement in tax avoidance schemes.
The summons also required the applicant to produce a number of documents relating to the same named persons and corporate entities.
The summons was issued and served under s 28(1) of the Australian CrimeCommission Act 2002 (Cth) (‘the ACC Act’) which provides:
‘An examiner may summon a person to appear before the examiner at an examination to give evidence and to produce such documents or other things (if any) as are referred to in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read B v Australian Crime Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FCA 1314
Decision Date: 16 SEPTEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In B v Australian Crime Commission, the applicant sought an injunction and a declaration from the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved the applicant's claim that the Australian Crime Commission had unlawfully disclosed their personal information in breach of privacy legislation. The case required the court to determine whether the commission's actions were justified under the relevant statutes and if the applicant had a legitimate expectation of privacy.

The primary legal issue was whether the Australian Crime Commission had complied with the privacy protections outlined in the relevant legislation when disclosing the applicant's personal information. The court also had to consider if the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the disclosed information and whether the commission's actions were proportionate and necessary. The court had to balance the applicant's right to privacy with the commission's statutory obligations to gather and disclose information for criminal investigations.

The court held that the Australian Crime Commission's disclosure of the applicant's personal information was justified under the relevant legislation. The commission had acted within its statutory powers and had a legitimate purpose for the disclosure. The court found that the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the disclosed information, given the nature of the investigation and the public interest involved. The commission's actions were deemed proportionate and necessary in the context of a criminal investigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant to pay to the respondent costs of the application.

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

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 604 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	B APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	ADELAIDE