Duncan, Poole & Anor, Atkinson v Independent Commission Against Corruption

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicants, Duncan, Poole and Atkinson, against a decision of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The applicants sought to challenge the validity of certain notices issued by the ICAC under section 21 of the *Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988* (NSW). These notices required the applicants to attend before the ICAC and produce documents.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the ICAC had acted lawfully in issuing the section 21 notices. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the ICAC had a sufficient basis to form the belief required by section 21(1) of the Act, which mandates that the Commissioner must have a reasonable suspicion that a person has engaged in, or has been involved in, corrupt conduct. The applicants contended that the ICAC's belief was not reasonably held, rendering the notices invalid.

The High Court analysed the nature of the "reasonable suspicion" required for the issuance of a section 21 notice. The Court held that a reasonable suspicion does not require a firm belief or proof beyond reasonable doubt, but rather a state of mind that is more than a mere possibility. It must be based on grounds that are real and not fanciful. The Court found that the material before the ICAC at the time the notices were issued was sufficient to ground a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had been involved in corrupt conduct, as defined by the Act. Therefore, the ICAC had acted within its statutory powers.