Bell v The Queen; Independent Commissioner Against Corruption v Bell

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an originating application by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC) seeking declarations that it possessed certain powers and had acted lawfully. This proceeding arose in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr Bell, who contended that the ICAC lacked the powers it claimed to exercise.

The Court was required to determine the scope of the ICAC's powers, particularly concerning the use of evidence obtained during investigations and the circumstances under which non-communication directions could be issued. Specifically, the Court had to interpret section 56A of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA), which governs the use of evidence obtained by the ICAC, and Schedule 2, clause 3(9) and (10) of the Act, which relates to the power of an examiner to issue non-communication directions. The Court also considered the definition of "corruption in public administration" as defined by the Act.

The Court reasoned that section 56A(1) permits evidence obtained by the ICAC to be used for criminal investigations and proceedings, even if the evidence was not originally obtained for those specific proceedings. Furthermore, section 56A(1a) clarifies that such evidence is considered lawfully obtained despite any jurisdictional error in the exercise of the ICAC's powers. Regarding non-communication directions, the Court noted that Schedule 2, clause 3(10) mandates such directions if a person's safety or reputation, or the fair trial of a person charged with an offence, might be prejudiced. The Court also affirmed the broad definition of corruption in public administration under the Act, which includes various offences committed by public officers.

The Court made declarations that the Commissioner had the powers that Mr Bell contended the Commissioner lacked and had acted lawfully.