KEVIN JAMES HAMMOND (a person appointed by commission dated 23 December 2003 to be Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission) -v- ABOUDI [2005] WASCA 204
| (2005) 31 WAR 533 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2005] WASCA 204 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1501/2005 | 25 AUGUST 2005 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA MCLURE JA LE MIERE AJA | 3/11/05 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Applications dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KEVIN JAMES HAMMOND (a person appointed by commission dated 23 December 2003 to be Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission) HASANEEN MOSA ISSA ABOUDI MARCO SORANI |
Catchwords: | Contempt of Corruption and Crime Commission Whether a breach of s 160 of Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 Effect of s 163 Certificate Constructive failure to answer questions Meaning of requirement to answer Whether adequate identification of the contempt |
Legislation: | Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 7A, s 7B, s 46, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 76, s 143, s 160, s 163, s 164(1), s 168 Criminal Code (WA) Royal Commissions Act 1968 (WA), s 14 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 55 r 2, O 55 r 5(1) |
Case References: | Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation & Ors v Viner & Ors (1982) 63 FLR 253 Brading v Thornton (1947) 75 CLR 140 Carew-Reid v Carew Corp Ltd, unreported; FCt of SCt WA; Library No 930254; 23 April 1993 Coward v Stapleton (1953) 90 CLR 573 Gabriel v Ah Mook (1924) 34 CLR 591 Keeley v Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162 Macarone v McKone (1986) 1 Qd R 284 MacGroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251 Powell v Battle [1963] WAR 32 R v Brisbane TV Ltd; Ex parte Criminal Justice Commission (1996) 2 Qd R 41 R v Parry, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970196; 1 May 1997 Re B (JA) (an infant) (1965) Ch 1112 Saxe v Kellett [1970] VR 600 Wood v Galea (1996) 84 A Crim R 274 Ex parte Bellanto; re Prior [1963] SR (NSW) 190 Lewis v Ogden (1984) 153 CLR 682 McGuinness v The Attorney-General of Victoria (1940) 63 CLR 73 R v Eades (No 1) (1991) 6 WAR 402 R v Jones (1990) 58 A Crim R 471 Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : KEVIN JAMES HAMMOND (a person appointed by commission dated 23 December 2003 to be Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission) -v- ABOUDI [2005] WASCA 204 CORAM : WHEELER JA
- MCLURE JA
LE MIERE AJA
Alleged contempt of KEVIN JAMES HAMMOND (a person appointed by commission dated 23 December 2003 to be Commissioner of the Corruption and…
Continue reading Hammond v Aboudi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hammond v Aboudi [2005] WASCA 204
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hammond v Aboudi involved a dispute before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Aboudi, was being investigated by the Corruption and Crime Commission. The applicant, Hammond, sought a declaration that the respondent had committed contempt by failing to answer questions. The court had to determine whether there was a breach of section 160 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003, and if so, whether this was a constructive failure to answer questions, and whether the contempt was adequately identified. The court also had to consider the effect of a section 163 Certificate.
The key legal issues in the case were whether the respondent's failure to answer questions constituted a breach of section 160, and if the failure was constructive. The court had to interpret the meaning of the requirement to answer questions and determine whether the contempt was adequately identified. The court also had to consider the effect of a section 163 Certificate, which is a certificate issued by the Commission that a person has failed to answer questions.
The court found that the respondent had not breached section 160, as he had not failed to answer questions. The court held that the requirement to answer questions was not absolute, and that the respondent had not constructively failed to answer questions. The court also found that the contempt was not adequately identified, as the application did not specify which questions the respondent had failed to answer. The court held that the section 163 Certificate did not have the effect of creating a contempt, as it did not identify the questions that the respondent had failed to answer.
The court dismissed the applications, finding that the respondent had not committed contempt. The court held that the application was inadequate, as it did not specify which questions the respondent had failed to answer, and that the contempt was not adequately identified. The court also held that the section 163 Certificate did not have the effect of creating a contempt.
The key legal issues in the case were whether the respondent's failure to answer questions constituted a breach of section 160, and if the failure was constructive. The court had to interpret the meaning of the requirement to answer questions and determine whether the contempt was adequately identified. The court also had to consider the effect of a section 163 Certificate, which is a certificate issued by the Commission that a person has failed to answer questions.
The court found that the respondent had not breached section 160, as he had not failed to answer questions. The court held that the requirement to answer questions was not absolute, and that the respondent had not constructively failed to answer questions. The court also found that the contempt was not adequately identified, as the application did not specify which questions the respondent had failed to answer. The court held that the section 163 Certificate did not have the effect of creating a contempt, as it did not identify the questions that the respondent had failed to answer.
The court dismissed the applications, finding that the respondent had not committed contempt. The court held that the application was inadequate, as it did not specify which questions the respondent had failed to answer, and that the contempt was not adequately identified. The court also held that the section 163 Certificate did not have the effect of creating a contempt.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.