Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission

Mr Egglishaw appealed against a decision of Besanko J, who dismissed his application for declarations that a summons and a notice to produce issued under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) were invalid and that the subsequent examination and production of documents and things were unlawful. The court was required to determine whether the summons was invalid due to the use of the term “an examiner” instead of “the examiner” and whether the failure to attach a variation to the determination of the Australian Crime Commission Board rendered the summons invalid. Additionally, the court had to decide if the notice to produce was invalid because it did not specify the person to whom production was to be made and whether the production of items was unlawful for the same reason. Furthermore, the court was tasked with determining whether the word “produce” in s 29(1) required actual physical possession and if the term “forthwith” was an unreasonable time frame for requiring production.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the use of “an examiner” did not invalidate the summons. The determination attached to the summons met the requirements of s 28(2). The notice to produce, read as a whole, made clear that the items were to be produced to the Examiner. The word “produce” in s 29(1) did not require the recipient to take actual physical possession, and “forthwith” was not an unreasonable time frame for requiring production.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the costs of the appeal of the respondent.