MF1; MF2; MES v National Crime Authority

The applicants, identified by the pseudonyms MF1, MF2, and MES, sought special leave to appeal from decisions of the courts below that refused judicial review. The respondent was the National Crime Authority. The dispute concerned the scope of the Authority's powers to compel the production of documents under section 28 of the relevant Act.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the true construction of section 28, specifically the limits of relevance that constrain the Authority's power to demand documents. Allied to this was a question of onus: when an objection is raised to a summons issued under section 28, whose burden is it to establish relevance? The applicants contended that it was the Authority's onus to demonstrate relevance, whereas the courts below had held that the applicants bore the onus of proving no conceivable grounds for the demand.

The Chief Justice, Mason, noted that the Court had excluded a "corporation point" from consideration, despite it being conceded as arguable by the opponents. The substantial point agitated by the applicants concerned the interpretation of section 28 and the associated question of onus. The applicants argued that the Authority's powers were limited by relevance to its terms of reference, and that the onus should be on the Authority to establish this relevance when challenged. The Court indicated it could quickly grasp the submissions without reading them first.