D'Amore v Independent Commission Against Corruption

D'Amore was the plaintiff in a case brought before the Court. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was the defendant. The dispute involved allegations of corrupt conduct, and the plaintiff sought judicial review of the defendant’s findings. The High Court of Australia was the court that heard the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the states of satisfaction referred to in sections 13(3A) and 9(5) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 are jurisdictional facts. The court also considered whether the Commission's findings of "corrupt conduct" were affected by jurisdictional error, and whether the Commission had purported to make findings of jurisdictional fact for which there was no evidence, or no rationally probative evidence.

The court found that the states of satisfaction are indeed jurisdictional facts. However, it held that the Commission had not fallen into jurisdictional error. The Commission's findings of "corrupt conduct" were not affected by jurisdictional error, as the Commission had reasonably satisfied itself of the plaintiff's guilty knowledge. The court found that the Commission's reasoning was not illogical or irrational, and that the evidence supported the Commission's findings.

The court dismissed the summons, affirming the Commission's decision. The court held that the Commission was entitled to reject the plaintiff's denial that she had read the claim forms, and to consider the conflicting accounts of Ms Harbilas and the plaintiff. The court also found that it was not irrational for the Commission to take into account the evidence relating to whether the plaintiff had read Ms Schofield's email.