X7 v Australian Crime Commission - [2012] HCATrans 169

[2012] HCATrans 169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S100 of 2012

B e t w e e n -
X7
Plaintiff
and
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Defendant
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Defendant
Summons for directions

GUMMOW ACJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 26 JUNE 2012, AT 10.18 AM

MR G.D. WENDLER: Your Honour, I appear for the plaintiff on the summons for directions. (instructed by John D Weller & Associates)

MR M.J. O’MEARA: May it please the Court, I appear for the defendants. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Now, what is the position in this matter, gentlemen?

MR WENDLER: The first defendant has filed a ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: Proposed short minutes?

MR WENDLER: Yes, which I agree with, as being a sensible way to advance it.

HIS HONOUR: Very well. Now, is your client the defendant in these proceedings?

MR WENDLER: He is the plaintiff, obviously, in this matter, but ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: No, I mean in the criminal proceedings.

MR WENDLER: Yes, he is. That is right.

HIS HONOUR: Not just a witness?

MR WENDLER: No, no, he is not a witness. He is the defendant. I think he wishes he was a witness.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, the Registrar has drawn to my attention a decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in a case called Saraceni v Jones decided on 16 March 2012. The electronic citation is [2012] WASCA 59. There is a pending special leave application in which Mr David Jackson is briefed. The question there is not the same, though it may be related. It was a question of the invalidity of 596A and 597 of the Corporations Act which confer power to summon for examination into the affairs of corporations.

MR WENDLER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: It might be worth counsel having a look at that. It may be that the two proceedings have to be connected in some way, but that is for a future date.

MR WENDLER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: All right, just pardon me a minute. Would Tuesday, 21 August at 9.30 be a convenient date, gentlemen?

MR O’MEARA: It is suitable for our client.

MR WENDLER: Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: I have completed proposed order 5 so that it reads “The matter be listed for further directions in Sydney at 9.30 am on 21 August 2012 before me”. I will direct that a copy of these orders and the transcript of today be placed in the special leave file in the Saraceni matter which is P8/2012.

So the Court orders:

1.The plaintiff be identified in these proceedings by the use of the pseudonym “X7”.
2.The defendants serve on the plaintiff their proposed case stated on or before 10 July 2012.
3.The plaintiff serve on the defendants any response to the proposed case stated on or before 24 July 2012.
4.The defendants file any…

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 X7 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: [2012] HCATrans 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application for special leave to appeal in *X7 v Australian Crime Commission*. The applicant, X7, sought to challenge a decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia concerning the validity of a notice issued by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) under section 29 of the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the ACC had acted within its powers when issuing the notice, which required X7 to attend before the ACC for examination.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of section 29 of the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) and, in particular, whether the notice issued to X7 was a valid exercise of the ACC's coercive powers. This involved an examination of the scope of the ACC's investigative functions and the procedural requirements for issuing such notices.

Gummow ACJ granted special leave to appeal, indicating that there were substantial questions of law to be determined. The reasoning for granting leave was not detailed in the provided text, but it suggests that the High Court considered the Full Federal Court's decision to raise significant issues regarding the interpretation and application of the ACC's statutory powers, warranting further appellate review.

Orders