Hutson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Hutson applied to the Supreme Court seeking declarations that the District Court judge erred in dismissing her application for a permanent stay of all charges against her, and that the compulsory examinations conducted by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) were unlawful. ASIC opposed the application. The primary legal issues for the court were whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant the declarations sought by Hutson, whether s 590AA(4) of the Criminal Code precluded the Supreme Court from granting such relief, and whether any discretionary considerations weighed in favour of Hutson’s application.

The court found that the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts does not extend to granting relief in respect of the dismissal of a s 590AA application in the District Court. Section 590AA(4) of the Criminal Code does not oust the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant declaratory relief, but in the circumstances of this case, it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to grant the declarations sought. The court found that the District Court judge did not err in dismissing the stay application, and that the compulsory examinations were lawfully conducted. The court found that discretionary considerations did not weigh in favour of Hutson’s application.

Hutson’s application was dismissed. Hutson was ordered to pay the costs of ASIC and the Director of Public Prosecutions.