In the matter of an application by Aiden Davis (a pseudonym)
[2025] VSC 403
•1 July 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Unrestricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2025 0109
| IN THE MATTER of an application for the revocation of a coercive powers order under s 12 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic) |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER of Aiden Davis (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | Elliott J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1 July 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 1 July 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | In the matter of an application by Aiden Davis (a pseudonym) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 403 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Coercive powers order – Application for revocation – Application for stay of proceedings – Court not in a position to determine underlying facts – No proper basis to grant stay – Application for stay dismissed – Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic), s 12.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| The applicant, Aiden Davis (self-represented) | -- | -- |
| For the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police | Dr S McNicol KC with Ms A Yuan | Chief Examiner’s Legal Unit, Victoria Police |
HIS HONOUR:
An application was made on 6 June 2025 by Aiden Davis[1] (“the Applicant”) under section 12 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic) (“the Revocation Application”). The affidavit in support referred to matters with which the Applicant had previously been charged. The charges were subsequently withdrawn.
[1]A pseudonym has been used to preserve the confidentiality of a coercive powers order in accordance with s 7 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act.
The Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police (“the Chief Commissioner”) filed submissions in opposition to the Revocation Application, both open and confidential. These submissions were signed off by counsel on behalf of the Chief Commissioner, including junior counsel. The open submissions were provided to the Applicant.
Yesterday, 30 June 2025, the Applicant filed and served a further affidavit, disclosing to the court that junior counsel had previously acted for the Applicant in relation to charges that were referred to in his earlier affidavit. The Applicant made an "urgent application for stay of proceedings" (“the Stay Application”), which has been made returnable today.
This morning during the hearing, a responsive affidavit from junior counsel was provided to the court by the Chief Commissioner’s senior counsel. Junior counsel was not in attendance (and another member of counsel appeared as the junior). Submissions relating to that affidavit were also provided; having been served on the Applicant shortly before the hearing commenced. The Applicant did not have time to read those submissions, but chose not to take time to do so.
It is unnecessary to descend into the detail of junior counsel’s affidavit. Suffice to say, there are material differences between that affidavit and the affidavit that was filed by the Applicant on 30 June 2025.
The Applicant has clarified in court that, as well as the current proceeding, the Stay Application includes an application for a stay with respect to the proceeding in which the coercive powers order was made by the court last year (“the Coercive Powers Order Proceeding”). This was put by the Applicant on the basis that the same junior counsel who had previously acted for the Applicant had also acted for the Chief Commissioner in the Coercive Powers Order Proceeding, a matter that was confirmed by the Chief Commissioner’s senior counsel during the hearing today.
Having been informed by the court that it was not in a position to make factual findings without a full hearing on the competing affidavits, the Applicant chose to proceed with the Stay Application. The stay was sought either permanently in relation to both matters connected with the coercive powers order, or at least to provide some form of carve out in relation to its applicability to him.
The Applicant insisted that today was the final hearing, and opposed any adjournment so that the competing affidavits could be tested, including by cross-examination. He submitted junior counsel had been caught out, and that his conduct meant that the order must be stayed.
As explained to the Applicant, in circumstances where the court is not in a position to determine the underlying facts relevant to the question of the stay, or to have the benefit of submissions after the relevant evidence has been adduced and tested, there is no proper basis to grant any stay in relation to any proceeding connected with the matters raised and the affidavits sworn on 6 and 30 June 2025 by the Applicant. If the evidence of junior counsel were accepted after a contested hearing, on those facts there would be no proper basis to order a stay.
Accordingly, the Stay Application is dismissed.
1
0
0