Christian, Craig Anthony v National Crime Authority

[1996] FCA 272

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA                  )

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY  )          No VG 143 of 1996

GENERAL DIVISION  )

BETWEEN:CRAIG ANTHONY CHRISTIAN

First Applicant

MICHAEL FRANCIS RIPPINGALE

Second Applicant

AND:NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY

First Respondent

GREGORY MELICK

Second Respondent

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Fourth Respondent

COURT:Sundberg J

DATE:25 March 1996

PLACE:Melbourne

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SUNDBERG J.
This application for an interlocutory injunction has come on at very short notice.  The first applicant seeks to restrain the first and second respondents from proceeding with a hearing tomorrow at which he is required to give evidence before the Authority.  The second applicant seeks to restrain the same respondents from proceeding with a hearing which I

think is to take place some time today at which he also is required to give evidence before the Authority.

I have read the application for an order of review, the affidavit in support and the exhibits, and I have heard brief argument from counsel on both sides. The argument was necessarily brief because only 30 minutes of Court time was available in which to hear the application. The application raises a considerable number of grounds which fall into three categories. The first is that, for various reasons, the summons under section 28 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 is invalid. The second is that the two references, one by the Commonwealth and one by the State of Western Australia, to the Authority are invalid. The third is that various sections of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and the Western Australian Act, the National Crime Authority State Provisions Act 1985, are invalid.

In the time available to me, I have not been able to make a proper assessment of the viability of any of these grounds, but I am prepared to assume that there is a serious question to be argued.  On the balance of convenience, however, I think that the answer is provided by section 32 of the Commonwealth Act.  Subsection (1)(c) provides that where:

a person claims to be entitled to refuse to answer a question put to him, or to produce a document that he was required to produce at a hearing before the Authority.

... the Authority shall decide as soon as practicable whether, in its opinion, the claim is justified and notify the person of its decision.

By subsection (2) a person who is dissatisfied with the decision, may apply to the Federal Court for an order of review.

The ensuing subsections set out the procedure to be followed on the application.  The applicants can attend before the Authority and deploy the whole range of their arguments before it.  The Authority must then give its decision and notify the applicants thereof.  The applicants then have their remedies under section 32.

Mr. Faris relied particularly on the fact that by attending before the Authority his clients would be accepting the validity of the summonses.  I do not think that is correct.  If they were to stand mute, and were to take no point opposing the validity of the summonses, they could well be taken to accept their validity.  However, the grounds they wish to deploy and which appear in their application include claims that they are under no obligation to attend.  Under those circumstances, the balance of convenience lies in allowing matters to take their course under section 32.  The application for interlocutory injunction in each case is refused.

I will give a direction that the evidence that was read or relied on today and the names of the parties that were mentioned today be not published.

I will reserve the costs.

I certify that this and the preceding 2 pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Sundberg

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .

Associate

17 April 1996

Counsel for the Applicants:  Mr P Faris QC

Solicitor for the Applicants:  Pryles and Defteros

Counsel for the first and second Respondents:         Mr B E Walters

Solicitor for the first and second Respondents:        Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:  25 March 1996

Place of Hearing:  Melbourne