Minogue v IBAC - [2025] VSC 197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 03380

CRAIG MINOGUE	Plaintiff
v
INDEPENDENT BROAD-BASED ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Minogue v IBAC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 197

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Plaintiff complained to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission claiming a conspiracy and corrupt conduct of public bodies and public officers in respect of R v Camilleri [2013] VSC 676 – Plaintiff subsequently advised the defendant that it ‘must’ speak with the mother of a girl who disappeared in 1992 – Defendant later determined not to investigate the complaint and, consequently, the complaint was dismissed – Plaintiff sought judicial review – Whether defendant failed to take a mandatory relevant consideration into account or unreasonably failed to inquire – Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic), ss 3, 8, 15, 51, 59, 59A, 60, 63, 67 and 68 – Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429; Chang v Neill (2019) 62 VR 174; Schmael v Leach [2020] VSC 562 and MacKenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria [2021] VSCA 100 considered – Proceeding dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendant	DP McCredden	Maddocks

HIS HONOUR:

A Introduction

These introductory remarks are derived from the material presented by the parties.

Since 1986, the plaintiff has been incarcerated in connection with the ‘Russell Street bombing’.

At his Supreme Court trial in 1988, the prosecution witnesses included Paul and Julie Hetzel. The plaintiff says that their evidence was discredited and must have been disbelieved by the jury. In any event, the plaintiff was convicted. His brother, Rodney Minogue, was acquitted.

In February 1992, Prue Bird (aged 13) disappeared from her home in Glenroy and is presumed dead. Her body has never been found. She is the daughter of Jenny Bird (‘Ms Bird’), who is, in turn, the daughter of Julie Hetzel.

It seems to have later been reported in the press that the plaintiff ordered the murder of Prue Bird as an act of revenge in order ‘to punish the star witness who testified against him’.[1]
[1]Court Book (‘CB’) 51 [33].

In about 2009, Leslie Camilleri confessed to the abduction and murder of Prue Bird. In 1999, Mr Camilleri had been sentenced to life without parole in respect of the ‘Bega schoolgirl murders’. The facts and circumstances relating to the death of Prue Bird were in dispute.

Mr Camilleri’s plea was heard by Curtain J over nine days in 2013. On 5 December 2013, her Honour sentenced Mr Camilleri to 28 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentences he was already undergoing. It will be necessary to refer to her Honour’s sentencing remarks in some detail (‘

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Minogue v IBAC

Details

AGLC: Minogue v IBAC [2025] VSC 197
Case: [2025] VSC 197
Decision Date: 16 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Minogue v IBAC involved a plaintiff who sought judicial review of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission's (IBAC) decision to dismiss a complaint about alleged corrupt conduct. The plaintiff had initially complained to IBAC about a conspiracy and corrupt conduct related to a legal case, R v Camilleri [2013] VSC 676. The plaintiff alleged that IBAC failed to investigate adequately and dismissed the complaint without proper consideration of the matter. The plaintiff argued that IBAC should have considered speaking with the mother of a girl who disappeared in 1992, as advised by the plaintiff.

The central legal issues in the case involved whether IBAC failed to take a mandatory relevant consideration into account or unreasonably failed to inquire as required by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic). The court considered relevant case law, including Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 259 ALR 429, Chang v Neill (2019) 62 VR 174, Schmael v Leach [2020] VSC 562, and MacKenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria [2021] VSCA 100. The plaintiff argued that IBAC's failure to speak with the mother of the missing girl constituted a failure to take a relevant consideration into account or an unreasonable failure to inquire.

The Court found that IBAC's decision-making process did not constitute a failure to take a mandatory relevant consideration into account or an unreasonable failure to inquire. The Court held that IBAC was not required to follow the plaintiff's advice on which specific steps to take in investigating the complaint. Instead, IBAC was entitled to determine the scope and direction of its investigation and was not obligated to speak with the mother of the missing girl. The Court found that IBAC's decision to dismiss the complaint was within its lawful powers and did not constitute an error of law. Therefore, the proceeding was dismissed.

No orders were made by the Court.

Orders