Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne - [2023] HCATrans 74

[2023] HCATrans 074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B66 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
Appellant
and
PETER DAMIEN CARNE
Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 2023, AT 10.00 AM

MR P.J. DUNNING, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends MR M.R. WILKINSON and MS S.E.D. SPOTTISWOOD for the appellant. (instructed by Crime and Corruption Commission)

MR J.M. HORTON, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my friend MR J.P. PEMBERTON for the respondent. (instructed by Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice)

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends MS R.M. O’GORMAN, KC and MR C.J. TESSMANN, intervening on behalf of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. (instructed by Clerk of the Queensland Parliament)

KIEFEL CJ: I think the parties have been advised that leave to intervene has been granted.

MR T.M. BEGBIE, KC: If the Court pleases, I appear with MR P.J. MELICAN and MS E.H.I. SMITH on behalf of the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia intervening. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Mr Dunning.

MR DUNNING: Thank you, your Honours. Your Honours, our principal submission is that the matter can be disposed as shortly of as the – by the operation of sections 9(2)(c), (d), and (e) of the Parliament of Queensland Act, which made both the preparation and the presentation of the report proceedings in the Assembly then by force of section 8, unable to be impeached. Ultimately, our submission is that is how your Honours should dispose of it, but that submission was rejected by the majority in the Court of Appeal, and it is pressed against us in this Court.

Can I briefly take your Honours to how it was ultimately dealt with in the Court of Appeal. May I ask your Honours, please, to take the core appeal book at page 85. Your Honours will see in paragraph [80], there is a reference to the conclusion that it:

was subject to parliamentary privilege –

being:

dependent upon the report being one which was made by the Commission –

and critically at [81]:

However, those facts could not confer parliamentary privilege upon a document made and delivered to the PCCC in purported, but not actual performance of the Commission’s functions. The preparation and delivery of the report, without the operation of section 69, were not acts done in transacting the business of the Assembly or its committee.

Which means what becomes critical is the construction that the majority placed on section 69 of the Parliament of Queensland Act, and that which is urged by the respondent in this Court.

Your Honours, the facts leading to the litigation were essentially agreed between the parties…

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 Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne

Details

AGLC: Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne [2023] HCATrans 74
Case: [2023] HCATrans 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal concerning the interpretation of provisions within the *Crime and Corruption Act 2001* (Qld). The appeal involved the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) and Mr Carne, who had been the subject of an investigation by the CCC. The central dispute revolved around the extent of the CCC's power to compel the production of documents and information from individuals suspected of corrupt conduct.

The High Court was required to determine whether the CCC had the power to issue a notice to produce documents to Mr Carne, even though he had not been formally charged with any offence. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of section 37 of the *Crime and Corruption Act 2001* (Qld), which grants the CCC broad powers to obtain information and documents relevant to its investigations, and whether this power was limited by the fact that Mr Carne was a suspect rather than a charged person. The Court also considered the interaction between the investigative powers of the CCC and the rights of individuals under investigation.

The High Court held that the power to issue a notice to produce under section 37 of the *Crime and Corruption Act 2001* (Qld) is not confined to situations where a person has been charged with an offence. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act is to facilitate the investigation of corrupt conduct, and that requiring a person to produce documents relevant to an investigation, even if they are a suspect, is a necessary and proportionate measure to achieve that purpose. The Court emphasised that the powers conferred on the CCC are investigative in nature and are designed to enable the Commission to gather evidence effectively. The appeal was allowed.

Orders