Heery v Criminal Justice Commission
Case
•
[2000] QCA 511
•15 December 2000
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Heery v Criminal Justice Commission [2000] QCA 511
[2000] QCA 511
15 December 2000
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Heery v Criminal Justice Commission, the Court addressed a dispute concerning the use of listening devices by the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) to record private conversations at the respondent's premises. The CJC had obtained an approval under section 82 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 to use such devices. The Supreme Court made declarations and orders, finding that the devices were used without authority, which constituted a breach of confidence, and ordered the destruction of the recordings and transcripts. The appeal and cross-appeal centred on several key legal issues, including the validity of the approval given by the Supreme Court, the scope of the Court's power to make declarations about the conduct of the CJC or its officers, and the discretionary factors that might justify a refusal to make such declarations.
The Court examined the requirement that an approval must specify the "particular matter" for which it was granted. Given that the approval in question failed to meet this fundamental criterion, the Court held that the approval was invalid. Furthermore, the Court found that section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 did not oust the Supreme Court's power to make a declaration concerning the conduct of the CJC or its officers. Regarding the discretionary factors, the Court concluded that they did not justify a refusal to make the declarations. The Court also considered the effect of section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989, which pertains to the amendment of administrative orders under the rules of court, and found that the criteria for applying the "slip rule" had not been met. Consequently, the Court determined that the order for the destruction of material was not valid.
Mr Heery's appeal was allowed, and the order of the Supreme Court for the destruction of material by the CJC was set aside. The cross-appeal of the CJC was dismissed. Additionally, the CJC was ordered to pay one-half of Mr Heery's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, to be assessed.
The Court examined the requirement that an approval must specify the "particular matter" for which it was granted. Given that the approval in question failed to meet this fundamental criterion, the Court held that the approval was invalid. Furthermore, the Court found that section 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 did not oust the Supreme Court's power to make a declaration concerning the conduct of the CJC or its officers. Regarding the discretionary factors, the Court concluded that they did not justify a refusal to make the declarations. The Court also considered the effect of section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989, which pertains to the amendment of administrative orders under the rules of court, and found that the criteria for applying the "slip rule" had not been met. Consequently, the Court determined that the order for the destruction of material was not valid.
Mr Heery's appeal was allowed, and the order of the Supreme Court for the destruction of material by the CJC was set aside. The cross-appeal of the CJC was dismissed. Additionally, the CJC was ordered to pay one-half of Mr Heery's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, to be assessed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Breach of Confidence
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Hutson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2022] QSC 243
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Kaldas v Barbour
[2017] NSWCA 275
Hutson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2022] QSC 243
R v Elphick (No 3)
[2017] ACTSC 302
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
2
Coco v Shaw
[1991] HCATrans 156
Grollo v Palmer
[1995] HCA 26
Ousley v The Queen
[1997] HCA 49