D155 v NSW Crime Commission

The application was brought by D155 against the New South Wales Crime Commission, seeking to restrain the Commission from proceeding with questioning D155. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the Commission had made orders pursuant to section 35A of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) to question the applicant. D155 had lodged an appeal from the decision with the Court of Appeal, and the application was brought in circumstances where the questioning was to take place before the appeal had been heard.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to restrain the questioning until the outcome of the appeal. The court had to determine whether the application met the criteria for such an injunction, including whether D155 had a serious question to be tried on the merits of the appeal, whether there was a real chance of success on the appeal, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the questioning on the administration of justice and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of criminal matters.

The court found that D155 had made out a serious question to be tried on the merits of the appeal, and there was a real chance of success on the appeal. The court also considered the potential harm to D155 if the questioning proceeded before the appeal was heard, and the public interest in ensuring that the administration of justice was not impeded. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction and ordered that the questioning be restrained until the outcome of the appeal. The court noted that the order was interlocutory and did not prejudice the final determination of the appeal.

The court made orders restraining the New South Wales Crime Commission from proceeding with questioning D155 until the outcome of the appeal. The orders were interlocutory and did not prejudice the final determination of the appeal. The court emphasised that the orders were made on an interim basis and that the final determination of the appeal would be made on its merits. The court also noted that the orders were not intended to impede the administration of justice or the public interest in the expeditious resolution of criminal matters.