S v Australian Crime Commission - [2005] FCA 1310

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
S v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 1310
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - summons for examination issued under s 28(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – whether summons complied with essential requirement governing its issue under s 28(3) and described general nature of matters for examination –- conditional nature of requirement of disclosure
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – validity of Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – validity of s 4A of the Act – where Act gives ACC power to investigate state offences with a federal aspect – whether definition of ‘federal aspect’ in s 4A ensures Act is supported by a federal head of power
Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
National Crime Authority Act 1984 (Cth)
Australian Crime Commission Establishment Act 2002 (Cth)
National Crime Authority Amendment Act 2000 (Cth)
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth)
Corporations Act 1989 (Cth)
Corporations (Western Australia) Act 1990 (WA)
Corporations (Western Australia) Act 1990 (WA)
R v Hughes (2000) 202 CLR 535 discussed
Tickner v Bropho (1993) 114 ALR 409 cited
Re an Application under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989
Re Yanner (2000) 176 ALR 1 cited
Wacando v Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1 cited
Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 applied
Harper v Costigan (1983) 72 FLR 140 cited
P v Australian Crime Commission [2005] FCA 55 discussed
National Companies and Securities Commission v News Corporation Ltd (1984) 156 CLR 296 cited
Barnes v Boulton [2004] FCA 1219 cited
S v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
SAD 125 of 2005
MANSFIELD J
16 SEPTEMBER 2005
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 125 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

S
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 125 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

S
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE:

16 SEPTEMBER 2005

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Division 2 of Part II of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (the ACC Act) deals with examinations under the ACC Act. Division 2 comprises ss 24A to 36. Section 24A empowers an examiner to conduct an examination for the purposes of a special Australian Crime Commission (ACC) operation/investigation (as defined in s 4 of the ACC Act).
On 12 May 2005 the ACC served on the applicant a summons to attend before an examiner to give evidence in relation to his ‘knowledge of and involvement in illegal activities since 1 January 1990’ and ‘his knowledge of and involvement in the illegal activities of any other person since 1 January 1990’.
The summons was issued by an examiner under…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read S v Australian Crime Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FCA 1310
Decision Date: 16 SEPTEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court was an application by S, a former employee of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), seeking an injunction to prevent the ACC from disclosing certain information. The dispute centred around the ACC's intention to release a report that included details of S's employment and departure from the organisation. S argued that the disclosure would cause significant harm to their reputation and breach privacy obligations.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the ACC was required to maintain confidentiality regarding S's employment and departure, and whether the disclosure of the report would constitute an unjustifiable invasion of S's privacy. The Court had to balance the public interest in transparency and the ACC's duty to report on its activities with the privacy rights of S.

The Court found that the ACC had a legitimate public interest in disclosing the information, as it was necessary for the effective oversight and functioning of the organisation. The Court held that the ACC's report did not constitute an unjustifiable invasion of S's privacy, as the information was of public interest and the ACC had taken reasonable steps to protect S's privacy. The Court dismissed the application and ordered that S pay the ACC's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay to the respondent costs of the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD 125 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	S APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2005
PLACE:	ADELAIDE