LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3)

The applicants in LHRC v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) sought various declarations, injunctions and other relief in relation to an Australian Crime Commission (ACC) examination of the first applicant and the use of the examination transcript in relation to a forthcoming interview under s 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). The applicants contended that the ACC examination of the first applicant was improper, and that the dissemination of the examination transcript to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the use of the transcript in connection with the s 264 interview were also improper. The court considered that the applicants' case was inefficient and complex. The court dismissed the application and reserved the question of costs pending further submissions. The applicants were to file and serve any submissions suggesting redactions from these reasons in order to prevent disclosure of the identity of the first applicant.

The court was required to decide a number of legal issues. The first was whether the ACC examination was convened for an improper purpose. The second was whether the ACC examination was held "in private" as required by the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth). The third was whether the decision to hold the s 264 interview was unreasonable. The fourth was whether the dissemination of the ACC examination transcript to the ATO and the use of the transcript in connection with the s 264 interview were authorised. The fifth was whether the dissemination of the examination transcript contravened non-publication directions made under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).

The court considered that the ACC examination was convened for a proper purpose, namely to gather intelligence in relation to federally relevant criminal activity. The court also found that the ACC examination was held "in private" notwithstanding the presence of ATO officers. The court further found that the decision to hold the s 264 interview was not unreasonable. Finally, the court found that the dissemination of the ACC examination transcript to the ATO and the use of the transcript in connection with the s 264 interview were authorised, and did not contravene non-publication directions made under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth). The court considered that the non-publication directions did not preclude the use of the transcript in connection with the s 264 interview.