CC v Australian Crime Commission - [2005] FCA 754

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CC v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 754

CC v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION

SAD.111 OF 2005

MANSFIELD J
2 JUNE 2005
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD.111 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CC
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

02 JUNE 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for interlocutory injunctive relief is refused.
The application is adjourned for directions to 9 am on 29 June 2005.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD.111 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

CC
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

02 JUNE 2005

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application for an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the Australian Crime Commission (the ACC) from continuing to conduct an examination of the applicant under the Australian Crime Commission Act (2002) (Cth) (the ACC Act). The examination presently sought to be restrained commenced on 31 May and 1 June 2005, and has been adjourned pending the hearing and determination of this application.
The applicant is presently the subject of two criminal charges. On 15 April 2004 he was charged with unlawful possession of a sum of cash. A South Australian police officer, also a member of the staff of the ACC, was the arresting officer and is the complainant. That matter is still before the court. On 21 March 2005 the applicant and another person were charged with taking part in the sale of cannabis, money laundering and avoiding reportable cash transactions in respect of conduct alleged to have taken place between 26 April 2004 and 10 May 2004. The same officer of the South Australia Police Force is the informant/complainant in respect of that charge. It also is unresolved.
Subsequent to the charges, on 4 April 2005, a summons was issued to the applicant to attend before the ACC to give evidence at an examination on 11 April 2005. He attended. He was examined. It appears that in the course of that examination, and whilst answering questions generally about his financial situation and his income and assets, including about loans available to him, he revealed some information relevant to the charge brought on 15 April 2004.
On 11 May 2005, the applicant was served with a further notice requiring him to attend on 31 May 2005 for further examination by the ACC. It is that examination which is the subject of the present application. On 31 May 2005, the applicant attended with counsel and sought an adjournment of the examination on the basis there was a danger that the examination would canvass matters which were the subject of the two outstanding charges. That adjournment was refused. The examination was to continue on 1 June 2005. The applicant attended on 1 June 2005 and renewed his application for an adjournment on the same grounds.…

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.

Continue reading CC v Australian Crime Commission

Details

AGLC: CC v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 754
Case: [2005] FCA 754
Decision Date: 02 JUNE 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CC, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose due to an investigation conducted by the ACC into the applicant’s activities, which the applicant claimed were unlawful and a breach of privacy rights. The primary contention was whether the ACC’s actions in obtaining and using personal information constituted an infringement of the applicant’s legal rights and whether such actions warranted an injunction to prevent further investigation.

The court was required to determine whether the ACC's investigation and use of personal information was lawful under the applicable legislation, specifically focusing on the powers granted to the ACC and whether these powers were exercised appropriately. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of establishing that the ACC’s actions were unlawful at the trial and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction.

The Federal Court, in its judgment, found that the ACC's investigation did not constitute an unlawful breach of privacy or exceed the powers granted by legislation. The court held that the ACC's actions were within the scope of their statutory authority and were therefore lawful. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of the case to warrant an interlocutory injunction. Consequently, the application for interlocutory injunctive relief was refused. The matter was adjourned for further directions, with the next hearing scheduled for 9 am on 29 June 2005.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for interlocutory injunctive relief is refused.

The application is adjourned for directions to 9 am on 29 June 2005.

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
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD.111 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	CC APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	02 JUNE 2005
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	02 JUNE 2005
PLACE:	ADELAIDE