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 - Particulars in motion - Certificate issued by Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission - Interpretation of 'the act or omission' - Whether certificate enlivens court's jurisdiction - Technical irregularities - Extraordinary powers finding - Presumption of regularity - Scope to challenge validity of administrative acts in criminal proceedings - Definition of 's 5 offences' and 'organised crime'

Legislation:

Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 46, s 47, s 48, s 96, s 160, s 163
Criminal Code (WA), s 294, s 304

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: Ms S Vandongen SC

Solicitors:

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

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

Australian Crime Commission and The Queen v LB [2009] NTSC 43; (2009) 25 NTLR 30
Gedeon v Commissioner of New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; (2008) 236 CLR 120
Hammond v Aboudi [2005] WASCA 204; (2005) 31 WAR 533
Kirk v The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531
Murphy v The Queen [1989] HCA 28; (1989) 167 CLR 94
Ousley v The Queen [1997] HCA 49; (1997) 192 CLR 69
R v Brisbane TV Limited; Criminal Justice Commissioner [No 2] [1998] 2 Qd R 483
R v Parry (Unreported, FCt SCt of WA, Library No 970196, 1 May 1997)
Re B (JA) (an Infant) (1965) Chancery 1112
Scott v Witness C [2009] QSC 35; (2009) 193 A Crim R 430
Selby v Pennings (1998) 19 WAR 520

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

There is a motion before the court brought by the Corruption and Crime Commission (the Commission) which seeks orders that Mr Wallace do stand committed to a term of imprisonment or be fined for a contempt expressed in the following terms. That Mr Wallace, 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 11 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…

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.

Continue reading Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace

Details

AGLC: Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390
Case: [2010] WASC 390
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace, the respondent was charged with contempt under Section 163 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003. The dispute arose from the respondent's failure to answer questions relevant to the Commission's investigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Justice Beech. The primary legal issue was whether the particulars in the motion, along with the certificate issued by the Commissioner, adequately fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of the court. This involved interpreting the scope of 'the act or omission' and whether the certificate could enliven the court's jurisdiction despite technical irregularities in the proceedings. Additionally, the court examined the presumption of regularity and the scope to challenge the validity of administrative acts within criminal proceedings, specifically concerning the definitions of 's 5 offences' and 'organised crime'.

The court held that the particulars in the motion, combined with the Commissioner's certificate, were sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The interpretation of 'the act or omission' was deemed to include the failure to answer questions pertinent to the investigation, thus satisfying the statutory requirements. While acknowledging the technical irregularities, the court applied the principle of the presumption of regularity, which supported the validity of the administrative acts unless proven otherwise. The court also clarified the scope for challenging these acts in criminal proceedings, noting that such challenges were limited and that the definitions of 's 5 offences' and 'organised crime' were not in question in this context.

Consequently, the court found the respondent guilty of contempt. The ruling underscored the importance of the Commissioner's certificate in establishing jurisdictional requirements and the limited scope for challenging administrative acts in criminal proceedings. The court's decision was definitive, and no further orders were made beyond the finding of guilt.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Corruption and Crime Commission and confirmed the respondent's guilt of contempt. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of statutory compliance and the presumption of regularity in administrative proceedings, while also delineating the narrow scope for challenging such acts in criminal matters.

Orders