Chief Commissioner of Police v Crupi

The Chief Commissioner of Police was the applicant in a proceeding in the Supreme Court of Victoria against Joseph Crupi, the respondent. The Chief Commissioner sought to have questions reserved to the Supreme Court answered. The questions related to the interpretation of the meaning of ‘substantial assistance’ under the Crimes (Serious and Organised Crime Information) Act 2017, and whether the Chief Commissioner’s decision to refuse an application for a suppression order was legally correct. Crupi opposed the application for the questions to be answered.

The primary issue before the court was whether the reserved questions were questions of law. The court considered whether it was open or reasonable to conclude that the material would render substantial assistance, and whether this was a factual inquiry or a question of law. The court also considered the public interest immunity issue and whether the reserved questions involved a compound of factual and legal considerations.

The court held that the questions were not questions of law. The meaning of ‘question of law’ depends on the context. The court held that it was not permissible to frame the question as whether the decision maker was correct. The court held that the extent of the relevance or forensic utility of a fact is quintessentially evaluative and impressionistic. The court held that it was not possible to determine the issue of substantial assistance without making findings of fact based on the evidence. The court held that the real dispute was one of fact, and there was no jurisdiction to answer the reserved questions.

No orders were made.