CC Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission - [2007] FCAFC 96

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CC Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission [2007] FCAFC 96

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – challenge to validity of search warrants – challenge depended on whether Board of Australian Crime Commission had authorised special investigation “in writing” and determined “in writing” that it was a special investigation, as required by s 7C of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – Board resolved in terms of a pre-prepared draft “Instrument” provided to Board – that document, not signed by or on behalf of Board, nonetheless purported to be a present authorisation and determination.

Held: the authorisation and determination was “in writing”.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “in writing”

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) s 7C

B (A solicitor) v Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd (2002) 6 VR 642 distinguished

CC PTY LTD, A PTY LTD/315/05, B PTY LTD/315/05, A315/05, B315/05, C315/05 D 315/05 v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION

SAD 26 OF 2007

BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ
26 JUNE 2007
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 26 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CC PTY LTD
First Appellant

A PTY LTD/315/05
Second Appellant

B PTY LTD/315/05
Third Appellant

A315/05
Fourth Appellant

B315/05
Fifth Appellant

C315/05
Sixth Appellant

D315/05
Seventh Appellant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Respondent

THE BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

26 JUNE 2007

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.
The appellants pay the respondents’ costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 26 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CC PTY LTD
First Appellant

A PTY LTD/315/05
Second Appellant

B PTY LTD/315/05
Third Appellant

A315/05
Fourth Appellant

B315/05
Fifth Appellant

C315/05
Sixth Appellant

D315/05
Seventh Appellant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Respondent

THE BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ

DATE:

26 JUNE 2007

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

INTRODUCTION

The appellants appeal from the whole of a judgment given by a judge of the Court on 25 January 2007 (CC Pty Ltd v Australian Crime Commission (No2) [2007] FCA 16). In the proceeding at first instance, the appellants challenged the validity of seven search warrants, the issue of which was procured by the first respondent, the Australian Crime Commission (“the ACC”). The warrants purported to authorise the executing officer to enter certain premises of the appellants and there to search for and seize things of a particular kind connected with a “special ACC investigation”.
The appellants’ argument before his Honour and before us was that the warrants were invalid because the underlying special ACC investigation had not been validly launched (to use a neutral term). Whether it had or had not been…

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 CC Pty Ltd 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: [2007] FCAFC 96
Decision Date: 26 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CC Pty Ltd versus the Australian Crime Commission was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, CC Pty Ltd, contested the legal validity of a warrant executed by the respondent, the Australian Crime Commission, which resulted in the seizure of the appellant's property. The primary issue in the case was the interpretation and application of the warrant provisions under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the warrant issued by the Australian Crime Commission complied with the statutory requirements, particularly regarding the authorisation and execution of the warrant.

The court considered the statutory framework that governs the issuance and execution of warrants, focusing on the requisites for judicial authorisation and the powers of the Australian Crime Commission. It examined the legislative intent behind the warrant provisions and the role of the Australian Crime Commission in executing warrants. The court also addressed whether the warrant was properly authorised by a judicial officer and if the execution of the warrant adhered to the legislative criteria. The High Court ultimately held that the warrant in question complied with the statutory requirements and that the execution was lawful. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of the warrant and the subsequent seizure of property by the Australian Crime Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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

BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 26 OF 2007

BETWEEN:	CC PTY LTD First Appellant A PTY LTD/315/05 Second Appellant B PTY LTD/315/05 Third Appellant A315/05 Fourth Appellant B315/05 Fifth Appellant C315/05 Sixth Appellant D315/05 Seventh Appellant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION First Respondent THE BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION Second Respondent
JUDGES:	BRANSON, LINDGREN AND BESANKO JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	26 JUNE 2007
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE