Cunneen v Independent Commission Against Corruption

This case concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales by the applicants against decisions made in the Common Law Division concerning an investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The applicants sought to challenge the ICAC's power to investigate allegations made against them, which they contended did not constitute "corrupt conduct" as defined by the *Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988* (NSW).

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the conduct alleged against the applicants was capable of falling within the definition of "corrupt conduct" under the Act, specifically whether it could "adversely affect" the exercise of official functions by a public official or "pervert" the course of justice. The court also considered whether the ICAC had the power to conduct a public inquiry into the matter and whether it was legally unreasonable to do so. Additionally, the court addressed the ICAC's obligation to provide reasons for its decisions and the court's power to direct the provision of such reasons, particularly in light of confidentiality provisions within the Act.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the alleged conduct, which involved an attempt to divert police from conducting a blood alcohol test by feigning chest pains, did not fall within the scope of "corrupt conduct" as defined by the *Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988* (NSW). The court found that the "course of justice" in the context of perverting justice did not extend to police investigations prior to the commencement of formal court proceedings. Consequently, the court declared that the ICAC lacked the power to investigate the specific allegations against the applicants.

The Court of Appeal granted the applicants leave to appeal, set aside the previous orders dismissing their summons, and declared that the ICAC had no power to investigate the allegations. The court also made orders regarding costs, directing that the respondent (ICAC) pay the applicants' costs in both the Court of Appeal and the Common Law Division.