Johns v Australian Securities Commission

The applicant, Johns, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from decisions made in proceedings involving the Australian Securities Commission and other respondents, including The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd and the State of Victoria. The core of the dispute concerned the alleged improper or excessive exercise of power by the Australian Securities Commission under the Australian Securities Commission Act, and related issues concerning the confidentiality of information obtained through coercive powers, the availability of judicial review against third parties, and the potential for contempt of court through vilification of an accused person awaiting trial.

The High Court was required to determine four principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the Australian Securities Commission had improperly or excessively exercised its powers. Secondly, whether any legal confidentiality attached to evidence or information obtained under Part III of the Australian Securities Commission Act, particularly when acquired through the use of coercive powers. Thirdly, the extent to which statutory provisions and common law permitted the granting of relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act against parties who were not directly involved in the initial decision under review. Finally, the Court had to consider the role of vilification of an accused person's character, where such vilification did not relate to the subject matter of the charges, and its potential to constitute contempt of court.

In addressing the first issue, the applicant relied on the principles articulated by Stephen and Aickin JJ in *Bunning v Cross*, which emphasised the need for courts to protect individual liberties against executive overreach. The applicant argued that the case squarely raised the question of whether safeguards for individuals, enacted by the legislature in response to increased regulatory intervention, were being disregarded. The Court was therefore asked to consider the implications of such disregard for the rule of law and the protection of individual freedoms.