Administrative law - Corruption and Crime Commission - Jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Corruption and Crime Commission exceeded its statutory jurisdiction - Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA) - Interpretation of misconduct - WA Public Sector Code of Ethics 2002 - Disciplinary offence - Serious breach - Failure to take into account material consideration - Denial of procedural fairness

Remedies - Prerogative writs - Certiorari - Equitable remedies - Declaration

Legislation:

Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 4(d)(ii)
Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     Mr R L Hooker
Respondent:     No appearance
Intervener:     Mr R J Meadows QC & Ms C L Conley

Solicitors:

Applicant:     Wright Barristers and Solicitors Pty Ltd
Respondent:     No appearance
Intervener:     State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
G v H (1994) 181 CLR 387
Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko‑Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah [2001] HCA 22; (2001) 206 CLR 57
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Police Integrity Commission v Shaw [2006] NSWCA 165; (2006) 66 NSWLR 446
Sean Investments Pty Ltd v MacKellar (1981) 38 ALR 363
Webb v The Queen (1993) 181 CLR 41

MARTIN CJ:

Summary

The applicant, Dr Walter Cox, asks the Court to quash those parts of the report of the Corruption and Crime Commission (the Commission) entitled 'Report on the Investigation of Alleged Public Sector Misconduct linked to the Smiths Beach Development at Yallingup' (the Smiths Beach Report) that relate to Dr Cox. There is no right of appeal from the findings of the Commission. Dr Cox seeks the intervention of the court on the grounds that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in a number of different respects in making findings adverse to him. For the reasons which follow, Dr Cox has failed to establish that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and his application should be dismissed.

The scope of judicial…

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 Cox v Corruption and Crime Commission

Details

AGLC: Cox v Corruption and Crime Commission [2008] WASCA 199
Case: [2008] WASCA 199
Decision Date: 6 OCTOBER 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cox v Corruption and Crime Commission involved an appeal by the applicant against a decision of the Commission, which found that the applicant had engaged in misconduct contrary to the WA Public Sector Code of Ethics 2002. The Commission's decision was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which found that the Commission had exceeded its statutory jurisdiction. The applicant sought prerogative writs and equitable remedies, including certiorari and a declaration.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Commission exceeded its statutory jurisdiction in finding misconduct and whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness. The applicant argued that the Commission had misinterpreted the Code of Ethics by finding misconduct based on a failure to take into account a material consideration. The applicant also claimed that the Commission denied procedural fairness by not allowing the applicant to address certain evidence presented by the respondent.

The Supreme Court held that the Commission had exceeded its statutory jurisdiction by finding misconduct based on a failure to take into account a material consideration. The Court found that the Commission's interpretation of the Code of Ethics was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the legislation. The Court also held that the applicant was denied procedural fairness as the Commission did not allow the applicant to address certain evidence presented by the respondent. The Court granted the applicant prerogative writs and equitable remedies, including certiorari and a declaration. The decision of the Commission was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the Commission for reconsideration.

Orders