Stewart v Australian Crime Commission

The Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal in the matter of Stewart v Australian Crime Commission. The appellants challenged the primary judge's rulings concerning the privileged status of certain groups of disputed documents seized by the Australian Crime Commission. The appellants argued that the primary judge misapplied the law in determining the status of certain documents as privileged and non-privileged. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's rulings on the privileged status of the disputed documents were correct and whether the primary judge erred in concluding that no choice of law issue arose in the case.

The court found that the primary judge correctly applied the Australian common law principles to the disputed documents. The court held that the primary judge's rulings on the privileged status of the documents were consistent and did not err. The court also held that no choice of law issue arose in this case. The statutory provisions imposed an obligation to produce documents, but that obligation is not to be construed as abrogating important common law rights, privileges and immunities in the absence of clear words or necessary implication. The court held that the common law of Australia recognises the Australian law of privilege which affords privilege to communications with lawyers for the purposes of obtaining legal advice. The court further held that the issue is a matter of statutory construction of the particular statute and the only qualification on the otherwise absolute obligations imposed by the statute in this case is the principle that protects those rights, privileges and immunities which the common law of Australia recognises as important.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal. The court granted leave to appeal in relation to grounds 1-5 of the draft Notice of Appeal but refused leave to appeal in relation to ground 6. The court held that the primary judge did not err in concluding that no choice of law issue arose in the case. The court held that the common law of Australia identifies not only the kind of right which is fundamental in the Potter v Minahan sense but also the scope of that fundamental right. The court held that the primary judge correctly applied the Australian common law principles to the disputed documents and that the rulings on the privileged status of the documents were consistent and did not err.