R v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commissioner

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by police officers against decisions of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commissioner (IBAC) to summon them to give evidence at a public examination concerning allegations of assault and human rights violations by Victoria Police officers. The dispute centred on whether IBAC had the power to compel evidence from individuals who had not yet been charged with an offence related to the subject matter of the investigation.

The legal issues before the Court were twofold: first, whether the power to hold a public examination under Part 6 of the *Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011* (Vic) could be exercised in relation to persons who might be charged with an offence related to the investigation's subject matter; and second, whether section 144 of the Act abrogated the common law privilege against self-incrimination.

The Court reasoned that the *IBAC Act* conferred broad investigative powers on IBAC, including the power to hold public examinations. It held that the statutory language did not restrict this power to only those who had already been charged, nor did it require IBAC to await the outcome of any criminal proceedings before exercising its compulsory examination powers. Regarding the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court applied the principle of legality, stating that any abrogation of such a fundamental common law right must be clear and unambiguous. The Court found that section 144 of the *IBAC Act*, which required witnesses to answer questions truthfully but provided immunity from prosecution for answers given, did not abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination in a manner that would prevent IBAC from compelling evidence from individuals who might be suspects.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.