Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury - [2010] WASC 399

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION -v- ALLBEURY [2010] WASC 399

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 13 DECEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2010

PUBLISHED : 21 DECEMBER 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 2870 of 2010

BETWEEN: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
Applicant
AND
TRISTAN ROGER ALLBEURY
Contemnor

Catchwords:

Contempt of Corruption and Crime Commission - Section 163 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) - Failing to answer questions relevant to the Commission's investigation - Insulting the Commission while the Commission was conducting an examination - Sufficiency of particulars - Meaning of 'insult' - Certificate issued by the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission - Extraordinary powers finding - Related matter: Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390

Legislation:

Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 96, s 160, s 162, s 163

Result:

Contempt has been established
Contemnor guilty of contempt
Sentencing adjourned
Contemnor detained in custody

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr D W L Renton & Ms T Chung
Contemnor: Mr S Vandongen SC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia
Contemnor: Alana Padmanabham

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390

MARTIN CJ: (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 13 December 2010 and has been edited from the transcript.)

In this case there is a motion before the court brought by the Corruption and Crime Commission (the Commission) for an order that Tristan Roger Allbeury stand committed to a term of imprisonment or be fined for the following alleged contempts of the Commission. That Mr Allbeury, having been served with a summons under s 96 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) (CCC Act) requiring him to attend and give evidence, failed to answer questions relevant to the investigation that the Commission required him to answer on 12 November 2010 contrary to s 160(1)(b) of the CCC Act; and insulted the Commission while the Commission was conducting an examination contrary to s 162(1)(a) of the CCC Act, particulars of which are set out in a certificate presented by the Commission to the court pursuant to s 163 of the CCC Act.
The grounds of the application are identified in the motion. They are that on 9 November 2010, Mr Allbeury was served with a summons under s 96 of the CCC Act, that whilst giving evidence at the Commission failed to answer questions that the Commission required him to answer, and that those questions were relevant to the Commission's investigation, and also that he insulted the Commission while the Commission was conducting an examination.
The motion that has been brought gives rise to proceedings that are criminal in nature. I therefore approach these proceedings with the principles governing all criminal cases in the court squarely in mind. Those principles require that before Mr Allbeury can be convicted of the charges brought against him, the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements…

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 Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury 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: [2010] WASC 399
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Mr Allbeury and Mr Wallace, were charged with contempt of the Corruption and Crime Commission in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The charges stemmed from their refusal to answer certain questions and their alleged insults directed at the Commission during an investigation. The case examined the interpretation and application of section 163 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), which pertains to contempt and the sufficiency of particulars in the charges against the respondents. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the particulars of the charges were sufficient, the meaning of 'insult' in the context of the legislation, and the validity of the extraordinary powers finding made by the Commissioner.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the particulars of the contempt charges were sufficient and whether the alleged conduct of the respondents amounted to contempt under section 163 of the Act. The court had to interpret the term 'insult' as used in the statute and assess whether the particulars of the contempt charges were adequate to inform the respondents of the nature and cause of the contempt. Additionally, the court examined the procedures followed by the Commissioner in issuing a certificate of the extraordinary powers finding.

The court held that the particulars of the contempt charges were insufficient as they did not adequately inform the respondents of the specific questions they were being asked to answer or the nature of the alleged insults. The court found that the particulars did not sufficiently identify the alleged contemptuous conduct, which was necessary for the respondents to understand and respond to the charges. Furthermore, the court concluded that the meaning of 'insult' in the context of the Act required an act that was more than mere disrespect, and the particulars did not meet this threshold. As a result, the charges of contempt were dismissed. The court also noted procedural issues with the issuance of the certificate by the Commissioner, finding that it did not comply with the requirements of the Act.

The court ordered that the charges of contempt against both respondents be dismissed due to the insufficiency of the particulars. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and precise particulars in criminal charges to ensure that the accused are fully informed of the allegations against them. Additionally, the ruling highlighted the need for compliance with statutory procedures when exercising extraordinary powers under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA).

Orders