Hogan v Australian Crime Commission - [2005] FCA 913

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 913
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – privilege against self-incrimination – examination under s 25A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – applicant claimed to be entitled to decline to answer questions on the ground that to do so may tend to incriminate him – whether privilege against self-incrimination abrogated by s 30 of the Act
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – right to representation by legal adviser – examination under s 25A of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – examiner refused leave to applicant’s nominated legal adviser to be present during examination – whether s 25A(3) qualified the entitlement of the applicant to be represented under s 25A(2) – whether examiner properly exercised the power to exclude the legal adviser
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ss 25A, 28, 30
Australian Crime Commission Establishment Act 2002 (Cth)
Australian Securities Commission Act 1989 (Cth)
Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1989 (Cth)
Explanatory Memorandum to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1989
National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth)
Australian Crime Commission Special Investigation Authorisation and Determination (Established Criminal Networks) 2003
A v Boulton (2004) 207 ALR 342 applied
Grant v Downs (1976) 135 CLR 674 cited
Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52 cited
Re Whiting [1994] 1 Qd R 561 cited
Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254 cited
O’Toole v Scott [1965] 2 All ER 240 cited
Skouvakis v Skouvakis [1976] 2 NSWLR 29 cited
Douglas v Douglas [1976] Qd R 75 cited
R v Matthews (1887) 8 LR (NSW) 45 cited
National Crime Authority v A, B and D (1988) 18 FCR 439 applied
Australian Securities Commission v Bell (1991) 104 ALR 125 discussed
Khan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1987] FCA 713 cited
IAN GRANT HOGAN v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION and JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD
NTD 1 of 2005
MANSFIELD J
7 JULY 2005
DARWIN

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

NTD 1 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

IAN GRANT HOGAN
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 JULY 2005

WHERE MADE:

DARWIN

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The decision of the second respondent to direct that the counsel representing the applicant not be permitted to attend the examination of the applicant is set aside.
2.Liberty is given to the parties to apply for such further or consequential orders as they may be advised.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

NTD 1 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

IAN GRANT HOGAN
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT

JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

7 JULY 2005

PLACE:

DARWIN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application is made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act). It arises from the conduct of an examination…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hogan v Australian Crime Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FCA 913
Decision Date: 7 JULY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Hogan pursued legal action against the Australian Crime Commission. The central issue was the second respondent's decision to prohibit the applicant's counsel from being present during the examination of the applicant. Hogan contested the legality and fairness of this directive, asserting that it infringed upon his rights to a fair trial and legal representation. The court was required to determine whether the directive was justified and whether it violated the applicant's legal rights.

The court thoroughly examined the principles of natural justice and the right to legal representation in its deliberation. It considered whether the directive was arbitrary or unfair and whether it prejudiced the applicant's ability to conduct his defence. The court also assessed the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings and the applicant's right to a fair hearing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the directive was not warranted and constituted an unjustifiable interference with the applicant's legal rights.

The court found that the directive to exclude the applicant's counsel during the examination was an error of law, as it contravened the principles of natural justice and the applicant's right to legal representation. The court set aside the directive and determined that the decision of the second respondent was unlawful. The court granted liberty to the parties to apply for any further or consequential orders they deemed necessary. This decision underscored the importance of respecting legal rights and ensuring the fairness of legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the second respondent to direct that the counsel representing the applicant not be permitted to attend the examination of the applicant is set aside.

2. Liberty is given to the parties to apply for such further or consequential orders as they may be advised.

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

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	NTD 1 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	IAN GRANT HOGAN APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION FIRST RESPONDENT JOHN PLANTA HANNAFORD SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 JULY 2005
WHERE MADE:	DARWIN

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	7 JULY 2005
PLACE:	DARWIN