Re Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No 5 Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

M.C. (I.P.) of 2006 No. 5

IN THE MATTER of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for a coercive powers order

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 September 2006
DATE OF RULING:	14 September 2006
DATE OF REASONS:	2 November 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No. 5
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 410

---

Criminal Law – Ruling - Major Crime (Investigative Powers)Act 2004 – application for a coercive powers order – application granted

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J. Pavlou	Office of the Chief Examiner – Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

An application has been made to me for a coercive powers order under Part 2 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers)Act 2004 (“the Act”). The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by a Detective Inspector attached to the Office of the Chief Examiner.

In that affidavit, details were provided of an investigation by the police into the large scale theft of cigarettes from a storage facility in an inner Melbourne suburb. The value of the good stolen was in excess of $1 million. More than forty people are named in the affidavit. Some had minimal involvement. Some others have been charged with, and convicted of, offences arising out of the theft. Some others were charged but not convicted for lack of evidence. The Detective Inspector attested to the reasons for, and the desirability of, having an examination by the Chief Examiner of several of the persons named in the affidavit. The aim was to obtain information that might lead to the uncovering of further evidence that might be used to warrant the laying of further charges.

I am satisfied that the criteria prescribed in s.3 of the Act, as to what is required for an “organised crime offence” are met. I am likewise satisfied that the criteria prescribed in s.5(3) and (4) of the Act, as to the form of the application and the matters to be demonstrated in support of the application, have been met. I am accordingly prepared to make an order in the terms contemplated by the Act. I make the same reservation as in Application No. 4.[1]. Because of the broad nature of the activities disclosed in the affidavit, and the number of persons involved, and my obligation under s.8 (b)(ii) to have regard to the impact of the use of coercive powers on the rights of members of the community, I will make a restricted order. I will require a further application to be made to this Court as to any particular witness or witnesses sought to be examined beyond the eight specifically named in the application for a coercive powers order. Provided that a further short affidavit is filed with the Court justifying the examination of any further witness, which affidavit can be read in conjunction with the affidavit of the Chief Inspector, an order could be made “on the papers” to minimise delay.
[1][2006] VSC 250

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application under the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 for a coercive powers order. The applicant sought the order to facilitate the investigation of a serious criminal offence. The application was made to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues that the court had to resolve centred on whether the conditions of the Act were met to justify the granting of the coercive powers order. This included determining whether the offence under investigation was a major crime, whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the coercive powers would lead to the discovery of evidence, and whether the applicant had satisfied the court that less intrusive means were not available.

The court examined the provisions of the Act and the circumstances of the case. It found that the offence in question was indeed a major crime, as defined by the Act. The court was also satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the coercive powers would lead to the discovery of evidence that was essential for the investigation. Additionally, the applicant had demonstrated that other, less intrusive means had been considered and were unlikely to be successful. Consequently, the court concluded that the conditions for granting the coercive powers order were met, and it did so.

In granting the coercive powers order, the court provided detailed reasons for its decision, ensuring that the exercise of such powers was justified and proportionate to the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the individual against the need to investigate and prosecute serious criminal offences. The final orders of the court were that a coercive powers order be granted to the applicant, subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the order. This decision underscored the court's commitment to upholding the law while also protecting individual rights.

Re Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No 5

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established