Commissioner of Police v Sleiman & AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd & Ors

The case involved an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the Commissioner of Police's revocation of a security licence held by AVS Group of Companies Pty Ltd and others. The dispute centred on the Administrative Decisions Tribunal's (ADT) ability to review the Commissioner's decision when the Commissioner relied on confidential criminal intelligence, and the extent to which the ADT could adopt procedures, such as a "special advocate" model, to ensure procedural fairness for the applicant without disclosing this intelligence. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the ADT was bound or empowered to adopt a special advocate procedure to represent the review applicant's interests, whether the Commissioner's refusal to approve the disclosure of criminal intelligence was amenable to judicial review, and whether the Commissioner was obliged to consider the review applicant's request for approval to disclose such intelligence. Additionally, the court considered whether section 29(3) of the *Securities Industries Act 1997* (NSW) was unconstitutional for purporting to deny the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and whether this constitutional question was premature.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Commissioner's appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. It set aside the declarations and orders made by Schmidt J, finding that the difficulties faced by an applicant for judicial review in circumstances of confidentiality did not establish a denial of the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the principles established in *Kirk* (2010) 239 CLR 531 were applicable, and that the ADT possessed sufficient powers to inform itself of the facts and law relevant to the review application, even in the face of confidential material, without necessarily resorting to a special advocate procedure. The court also affirmed that section 29(3) of the *Securities Industries Act 1997* applied to applications for a stay of a revocation decision.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the proceedings be dismissed and that AVS pay the Commissioner's costs of the proceedings and the appeal. The court also dismissed AVS's summons filed in the Supreme Court and ordered AVS to pay the Commissioner's costs in those removed proceedings.