NS v Scott

The appeal in NS v Scott involved the appellant, who had been required to give evidence at an investigative hearing of the Crime and Corruption Commission concerning drug trafficking offences. The appellant was charged with trafficking as a result of alleged supplies to another individual named in the terms of reference of the hearing. An officer involved in the investigation of the appellant's charge was present at the hearing, leading the appellant to argue that he had a reasonable excuse not to answer questions under section 190 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld). The appellant contended that derivative evidence obtained from his answers could be used against him at trial, and therefore, he should not be compelled to testify.

The presiding officer considered the closed nature of the hearing, the direct use immunity provided by the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld), and the proposed order prohibiting the publication of the evidence to any prosecutor. The presiding officer rejected the appellant's claim of reasonable excuse, and the appellant's subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied. The court held that the orders made by the presiding officer in relation to publication were sufficient to limit the use of the information obtained from the appellant. The court also held that the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) did not abrogate the fundamental principle that the onus of proof rests on the Crown and that an accused cannot be compelled to assist it in meeting that onus. Furthermore, the court found that the prospective obtaining of derivative evidence against a person charged does not amount to a reasonable excuse under section 190(1). The judge at first instance did not err in finding that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for refusing to answer questions at the Crime and Corruption Commission hearing.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decision of the presiding officer was upheld. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant was required to give evidence at the hearing, and the orders made by the presiding officer in relation to publication were sufficient to limit the use of the information obtained from the appellant. The court further held that the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Qld) does not abrogate the fundamental principle that the onus of proof rests on the Crown and that an accused cannot be compelled to assist it in meeting that onus. The court also found that the prospective obtaining of derivative evidence against a person charged does not amount to a reasonable excuse under section 190(1). Finally, the court held that the judge at first instance did not err in finding that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for refusing to answer questions at the Crime and Corruption Commission hearing.