Brott v McDonald

The applicant, Issac Alexander Brott, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from an order made by a magistrate. The respondent was represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The dispute concerned the interrelationship between the Commonwealth *Royal Commissions Act* and a Victorian evidentiary provision, specifically section 30 of the *Victorian Evidence Act*.

The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether a Royal Commissioner possessed the power to make a non-publication order prior to the adduction of any evidence. Secondly, the applicant contended that section 30 of the *Victorian Evidence Act*, which generally provides protection against self-incrimination except in prosecutions for perjury, should operate to protect a person in the context of a joint Commonwealth/Victorian royal commission.

The applicant argued that the Commissioner did have the power to make a non-publication order before evidence was given, contrary to the primary judge's findings. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that section 30 of the *Victorian Evidence Act* applied to protect individuals under the terms of the joint commission, drawing an analogy to *Giannarelli v R* where a Commonwealth provision protected individuals from prosecution under Victorian law. The Court noted that the procedural matter, which had been determined in advance of evidence being taken, had disappeared from the case.