McLeod-Dryden v Supreme Court of Victoria

The applicant in this case, McLeod-Dryden, sought a coercive powers order under the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 to compel a third party to provide information relating to organised crime offences. The application was made to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and when the application was refused, McLeod-Dryden sought judicial review of that decision. The central issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court was the proper defendant in an application for judicial review of a refusal of a coercive powers order. Additionally, the court had to determine the meaning of "systemic and continuing criminal activity" and whether such activity must be ongoing at the time of the application for the coercive powers order.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004, including sections 3AA(2)(b), 5, and 8, to ascertain the proper interpretation of "systemic and continuing criminal activity." It was held that the Supreme Court was the proper defendant in the judicial review proceedings as the refusal of the coercive powers order was a decision made by a judge of the Supreme Court. The court also concluded that the term "systemic and continuing criminal activity" does not require the activity to be ongoing at the time the application is made, but rather that the activity must have a systemic and continuing nature.

In light of the court's findings, it dismissed McLeod-Dryden's application for judicial review and affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court to refuse the coercive powers order. The court held that there was no error in the Supreme Court's determination that the criteria for granting such an order were not met. Consequently, the application for judicial review was unsuccessful, and no coercive powers order was issued.