Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [No 2] - [2011] WASC 73

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION -v- WALLACE [No 2] [2011] WASC 73

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 13 DECEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 8 MARCH 2011

PUBLISHED : 21 MARCH 2011

FILE NO/S: CIV 2869 of 2010

BETWEEN: CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION
Applicant
AND
STEPHEN JOHN WALLACE
Contemnor

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - Contempt - Contempt of Corruption and Crime Commission - Relevant principles - Failing to answer questions relevant to Commission's investigation - Relevance of Sentencing Act - Length of sentence - Personal circumstances as a mitigating factor - Revocation of parole under s 19AQ Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Relevant law in setting new non-parole period per s 19AR Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Interpretation of s19AA(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Legislation:

Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 96, s 160(1)(b), s 163
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AA(2), s 19AA(3), s 19AQ
Criminal Code (WA), s 7
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 9
Sentence Administration Act 2003 (WA), s 71
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 3, s 6
Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983 (Cth), s 23

Result:

Contemnor sentenced to 2 years imprisonment
Warrant issued under s 19AS Crimes Act to serve outstanding balance of federal sentences, set to expire on 26 May 2015

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr D W L Renton & Ms T Chung
Contemnor:     Mr L M Levy SC
Amicus Curiae              :     Mr J Olling

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia
Contemnor:     Alana Padmanabham
Amicus Curiae              :     Department of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

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

Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury, Silvestro, Chikonga, Smith (No 2) [2011] WASC 26
Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390
Kennedy v Lovell [2002] WASCA 226
Wood v Galea (1997) 92 A Crim R 287
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183
X v The Queen (1993) 116 FLR 110

MARTIN CJ: Stephen John Wallace was convicted by me of contempt of court after a hearing that was conducted on 13 December 2010 as a consequence of the operation of certain provisions of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) (the CCC Act). The facts that gave rise to his conviction are set out in the reasons which I gave on that day and which have been published, and essentially involved a finding that Mr Wallace, who had been served with a summons under s 96 of the CCC Act requiring him to attend and give evidence, attended, took an affirmation, but then failed to answer questions relevant to the investigation that the Corruption and Crime Commission (the Commission) required him to answer: see Corruption and Crime Commission v Wallace [2010] WASC 390.
The evidence that was adduced at the time of Mr Wallace's trial established that on 18 different occasions Mr Wallace answered 'no comment' to questions that were directed at ascertaining information in relation…

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 Wallace [No 2] 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: [2011] WASC 73
Decision Date: 21 MARCH 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was brought by the Corruption and Crime Commission against Wallace. The dispute centred around allegations of contempt against the Commission, specifically for Wallace's failure to answer questions pertinent to an ongoing investigation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The crux of the legal issues the court had to address was the appropriate sentencing for Wallace's contempt, taking into account the principles of sentencing and the relevant statutory provisions. The court needed to interpret and apply sections 19AA(2), 19AQ and 19AR of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in determining the length of the sentence and the revocation of parole.

The court began by considering the general principles of sentencing, particularly those relevant to contempt of a statutory body such as the Corruption and Crime Commission. It examined how the Sentencing Act interacts with the specific provisions of the Crimes Act in setting a sentence. The court also took into account Wallace's personal circumstances as a mitigating factor. In addressing the revocation of parole under section 19AQ, the court was required to interpret section 19AA(2) in setting a new non-parole period under section 19AR. The court gave careful consideration to the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the provisions. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating personal circumstances of the offender.

The court held that the appropriate sentence for Wallace's contempt of the Corruption and Crime Commission must be one that balances the need for deterrence and the principles of sentencing with the specific mitigating factors presented. In setting the new non-parole period, the court found that section 19AA(2) must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the overall purpose of the Crimes Act. The court ordered that Wallace's parole be revoked and set a new non-parole period in accordance with the statutory requirements. This decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, particularly in cases involving contempt of a statutory body. The final orders included the revocation of Wallace's parole and the setting of a new non-parole period in line with the court's determination.

Orders