R & M v Ibac

In the matter of R & M v Ibac, the applicants sought judicial review of decisions made by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) under the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic). The applicants, who were under investigation for criminal offences, challenged the legality of being examined by IBAC regarding matters that were the subject of their investigation, contending that such examinations were not permitted under the statute. They also argued that the abrogation of their privilege against self-incrimination contravened the principle of legality. The applicants sought to have the decisions of IBAC quashed on the basis that they were affected by jurisdictional errors, including irrelevant considerations, a failure to take into account relevant considerations, and legal unreasonableness.

The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant provisions of the IBAC Act to determine whether the statute authorised IBAC to examine persons under investigation for criminal offences in relation to matters under investigation, and whether such examinations could be conducted publicly. The court also had to consider the effect of the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination and whether the decisions of IBAC were affected by jurisdictional errors. The court was required to examine the principle of legality and the express statutory obligation of reasonableness imposed on IBAC.

The court found that the IBAC Act did not explicitly authorise the examination of persons under investigation, nor did it permit such examinations to be conducted publicly. The court held that the abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination did not contravene the principle of legality, as the statutory scheme provided adequate safeguards. The court further determined that IBAC’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional errors, as the Commissioner's opinion that the jurisdictional conditions were satisfied was not a reviewable error. The court held that the decisions of IBAC were not unreasonable, as they were in accordance with the express statutory obligation of reasonableness.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that IBAC had not erred in its decisions. The applicants were not granted the relief they sought, and the decisions of IBAC were upheld.