Corruption and Crime Commission v McCormick - [2010] WASC 397

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION -v- McCORMICK [2010] WASC 397

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 13 DECEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2010

PUBLISHED : 21 DECEMBER 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 2873 of 2010

BETWEEN: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
Applicant
AND
NEIL SYDNEY McCORMICK
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 Commissioner's investigation - 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 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.)

Mr McCormick is the subject of a motion brought by the Corruption and Crime Commission (the Commission) seeking an order that he stand committed to a term of imprisonment or be fined for contempt, namely that 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, he failed to answer questions relevant to the investigation the Commission required him to answer on 12 November 2010 contrary to s 160(1)(b) 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 that on 9 November 2010, Mr McCormick was served with a summons under s 96 requiring him to attend and give evidence, that on 12 November 2010 whilst giving evidence he failed to answer a question that the Commission required him to answer and that that question was relevant to the investigation.
Because the nature of the proceedings brought against Mr McCormick are criminal proceedings, it follows of course that I apply the well‑known principles that apply to all proceedings of that kind and bear them steadfastly in mind. The applicant carries the burden of proving the matters that are said to give rise to the contempt beyond reasonable doubt. That burden remains on the applicant throughout the case and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard known to the law.
The jurisdiction conferred upon this court to deal with alleged contempts against the Commission are conferred by s 163 of the CCC Act:
163. Punishment of contempt of Commission
(1)Where a contempt of the Commission is alleged to have taken place, the…

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 McCormick 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 397
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Corruption and Crime Commission v McCormick, the Corruption and Crime Commission sought to hold the respondent, Mr McCormick, in contempt of the Commission under section 163 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA). The dispute centred on whether Mr McCormick had failed to answer questions relevant to an investigation being conducted by the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. A certificate had been issued by the Commissioner, asserting that Mr McCormick had been given an opportunity to answer the questions and had refused to do so. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of section 163 of the Act. The court had to determine whether the certificate issued by the Commissioner was valid and if Mr McCormick's failure to answer the questions constituted contempt of the Commission. This involved examining the scope of the Commissioner's powers under the Act and the procedural requirements that must be met before a finding of contempt can be made. Additionally, the court considered the precedent set in the related matter of Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390, which provided guidance on the interpretation of similar provisions in the Act.

The court found that the certificate issued by the Commissioner was valid and that Mr McCormick's refusal to answer the questions did indeed constitute contempt of the Commission. The court emphasised the extraordinary powers of the Commissioner under section 163 of the Act, which are designed to facilitate investigations into corruption and serious crime. The court held that the procedural requirements of the Act had been satisfied, and the Commissioner's certificate was sufficient to establish the contempt. The decision highlighted the importance of cooperation with the Commission's investigations and the consequences that can arise from a failure to comply with its directives.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Mr McCormick was in contempt of the Commission and an order that he pay a fine of $20,000. The court also ordered that Mr McCormick be detained until the fine was paid. This decision reinforced the authority of the Corruption and Crime Commission to hold individuals in contempt and the seriousness with which the courts view failures to comply with its investigations.

Orders