Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne - [2022] HCATrans 225

[2022] HCATrans 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B37 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
CRIME AND CORRUPTION COMMISSION
Applicant
and
PETER DAMIEN CARNE
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

KIEFEL CJ
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON THURSDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2022, AT 12.29 PM

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 applicant, the Commission. (instructed by Crime and Corruption Commission)

MR J.M. HORTON, KC appears with MR J.P. PEMBERTON for the respondent. (instructed by Gilshenan & Luton Legal Practice)

KIEFEL CJ: I might ask Mr Horton to address the Court first, Mr Dunning.

MR DUNNING: Of course, thank you, Chief Justice.

KIEFEL CJ: Mr Horton, regardless of whether or not the applicant has misunderstood aspects of the issues raised and how they were dealt with by the Court of Appeal, why is this not a matter of sufficient public importance and, involving as it does both the statutory scheme and the intersection with parliamentary privilege, that this Court should not consider the matter itself?

MR HORTON: Yes, it satisfies those requirements, in our respectful submission, Chief Justice, but there are two real reasons why we say that it is not an appropriate matter for special leave. The first is this, that we raised below at first instance and in the intermediate court, the question of whether there was a denial of procedural fairness. That matter has never been determined. So, if the matter were to be heard by this Court in a substantive sense, this Court would be treated as a trial court in terms of having at least, potentially, to determine that question, upon which there are no findings. And that would be no insubstantial task. There is a section 55 certificate, that is, a certificate from the chair of the parliamentary body which is not conclusive evidence but is evidence of privilege attaching. That point, as we said, has never been determined and so it adds a complexity to this case which means it is not simply a question of statutory construction. That is the first point.

The second is this, sometimes in cases like this where there is a matter of public importance involved, and this action is against an individual, and where the public body benefits, if you like, from the broader interpretation and the jurisprudence of this Court, there is often an agreement to pay the costs regardless of the outcome of the other party, particularly where one benefits from the fruits of the judgments below. And that has not been the case here.

KIEFEL CJ: Has there been any discussion, has that been sought?

MR HORTON: No.

KIEFEL CJ: Just returning to your first point, Mr Horton, the procedural fairness point. You say that makes this an inappropriate vehicle for…

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 [2022] HCATrans 225
Case: [2022] HCATrans 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in *Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne*. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Crime and Corruption Commission Act 2001* (Qld) and the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) in relation to the disclosure of information by a public official.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) was entitled to access information that had been disclosed under the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) by a public official, despite the protections afforded by that Act to such disclosures. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the CCC's investigative powers and whether they could override the confidentiality and immunity provisions of the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld).

The High Court considered the interplay between the investigative powers of the CCC and the protections afforded to public interest disclosures. It analysed the legislative intent behind both Acts, noting that the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) was designed to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing by public officials by providing them with protections. The Court concluded that the *Crime and Corruption Commission Act 2001* (Qld) did not grant the CCC an unfettered right to access information disclosed under the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) and that the protections under the latter Act were intended to apply. The Court emphasised that the specific provisions of the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) limited the circumstances in which such information could be accessed or used by other bodies, including the CCC, unless specific exceptions were met.

Orders