Soley v Crime and Corruption Commission

In Soley v Crime and Corruption Commission, the applicant, Mr Gerard Soley, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC), to refer his complaint to the Office of the Health Ombudsman (OHO) for investigation. Mr Soley alleged that officers from the OHO had fraudulently falsified documents and that Mr Atkinson-MacEwen, a person employed by the OHO, was aware of the alleged fraud but took no action. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the CCC erred by failing to take into account a relevant consideration, specifically the script that was central to the allegations of fraud. Mr Soley contended that the CCC should have investigated the matter directly rather than relying on the OHO, as it was of significant public interest.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions, particularly the devolution principle outlined in section 34 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (CC Act), which generally directs that action to deal with corrupt conduct should be taken by the agency involved. The court noted that the CCC had reasonably referred the complaint to the OHO due to the conflict of interest presented by the OHO handling its own complaints. The applicant's argument that the CCC should have bypassed the OHO to conduct its own investigation was rejected, as the court found that the decision to refer the complaint to the OHO was in accordance with the statutory framework and did not constitute a failure to consider a relevant matter.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, holding that the CCC had appropriately exercised its discretion under the Act and did not commit an error warranting judicial review. The decision to refer the complaint to the OHO was consistent with the statutory principles and did not involve an oversight of relevant considerations.