HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KIEFEL CJ,
GAGELER, GORDON, EDELMAN AND JAGOT JJCRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION APPELLANT
AND
PETER DAMIEN CARNE RESPONDENT
Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne
[2023] HCA 28
Date of Hearing: 6 & 7 June 2023
Date of Judgment: 13 September 2023
B66/2022
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland
Representation
P J Dunning KC with M R Wilkinson and S E D Spottiswood for the appellant (instructed by Crime and Corruption Commission)
J M Horton KC with J P Pemberton for the respondent (instructed by Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice)
T M Begbie KC with P J Melican and E H I Smith for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, intervening (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
B W Walker SC with R M O'Gorman KC and C J Tessmann for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, intervening (instructed by Clerk of the Queensland Parliament)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
KIEFEL CJ, GAGELER AND JAGOT JJ. The office of the Public Trustee of Queensland was established under the Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld) and the Public Trustee is appointed under that Act[1]. The respondent held that office from March 2009 until March 2014, and from March 2016 until 31 July 2020, when his resignation took effect.
[1]Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), s 9(1).
The Crime and Corruption Commission ("the Commission") was established under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) ("the CC Act")[2]. The Parliamentary Crime and Corruption Committee ("the Committee") was also established under the CC Act as a committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland[3].
[2]Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 220.
[3]Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), s 291.
On 25 June 2018 the Commission received an anonymous complaint against the respondent alleging that he had been involved in corrupt conduct and was guilty of maladministration. In September 2018, after further correspondence was received from the same person, the Commission commenced an investigation into the allegations.
On 28 May 2019 the Commission referred certain information to the Attorney‑General for consideration of whether the respondent had engaged in "misbehaviour" within the meaning of the Public Trustee Act, and whether to take disciplinary action against the respondent. On 13 June 2019 the Attorney‑General advised the respondent that the Governor‑in‑Council had approved the suspension of his appointment as Public Trustee pending the outcome of a "show cause" process. In November 2019 a show cause letter in respect of a number of allegations of misbehaviour under the Public Trustee Act was issued to the respondent. The respondent was invited to make submissions.
On 23 April 2020 the Commission wrote to the Acting Public Trustee, making a number of recommendations as to the operation of the Public Trust Office. The description of the subject matter of the letter contained the words "referral of recommendations". The topics to which recommendations…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] HCA 28
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. First, whether the Commission's report constituted an "other report" for the purposes of section 69(1)(b) of the *Crime and Corruption Act 2001* (Qld), which governs the tabling of reports by the Committee. Second, the Court had to consider whether section 8(1) of the *Parliament of Queensland Act 2001* (Qld) precluded the Court from making any declaration concerning the report, on the basis that its preparation and presentation constituted "proceedings in the Assembly" and were therefore immune from judicial review.
The Court reasoned that the report in question did not fall within the definition of an "other report" under section 69(1)(b) of the *Crime and Corruption Act 2001* (Qld), as that provision was intended to apply to reports made after a public hearing or research, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court held that the certificate issued by the Committee under section 55 of the *Parliament of Queensland Act 2001* (Qld) was determinative. This certificate certified that the report was prepared for the purposes of, or incidental to, transacting the business of the Committee under section 9(2)(c) of that Act. Consequently, the report was considered to be part of "proceedings in the Assembly" as defined by section 9 of the *Parliament of Queensland Act 2001* (Qld). Section 8(1) of that Act provides that such proceedings cannot be impeached or questioned in any court. Therefore, the Court was precluded from making any declaration concerning the report.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: KIEFEL CJ, GAGELER AND JAGOT JJ,
Full text does not contain this section.