Witness A v Crime and Misconduct Commission

The appellant, Witness A, challenged a decision of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, an independent statutory body established under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001, to compel the appellant to answer questions under oath during an investigation. The appellant argued that the statutory requirement to answer questions violated the privilege against self-incrimination and protections afforded to an accused person under investigation for a pending charge. The Queensland Court of Appeal was asked to determine the extent of the Commission's power to compel answers and whether the statutory requirement conflicted with common law rights. The court considered whether the statutory requirement was an implied repeal of the common law protections or whether it was a permissible limitation on those rights. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory requirement did not abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination or protections for an accused person under investigation for a pending charge. The court found that the statutory requirement to answer questions was not an implied repeal of the common law protections and was not a permissible limitation on those rights. The court held that the statutory requirement conflicted with the common law protections and was therefore invalid to the extent of the conflict. The court granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.