X7 v Australian Crime Commission

The High Court of Australia considered a case stated by the parties, X7 (the plaintiff) and the Australian Crime Commission (the defendant). The dispute arose when the plaintiff, who had been charged with three indictable Commonwealth offences, was summoned to attend an examination by an examiner appointed under the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth). The examiner questioned the plaintiff about the subject matter of the very offences with which he had been charged.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) empowered an examiner to conduct an examination of a person who had already been charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence, where the examination concerned the subject matter of those charged offences. A secondary issue, contingent on the first, was whether the Act would be invalid to that extent if it did grant such power, by reason of Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) did not authorise an examiner to require a person already charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of that offence. The Court applied the principle of legality, noting that statutory powers that might prejudice the fair trial of a person must be clearly and unambiguously conferred. While the Act generally compels attendance and answers at examinations, it also provides a "use immunity" for answers given under compulsion, preventing their direct use in criminal proceedings, except in limited circumstances. However, the Court found that the Act's provisions, particularly in relation to examinations concerning charged offences, did not extend to compelling answers that would directly prejudice the fair trial of an accused. The Court also rejected the submission that an examiner exercising powers under s 25A(9) of the Act was exercising judicial power, distinguishing such executive inquiries from the determination of facts and application of law by a court.

Consequently, the High Court answered the first question in the Case Stated in the negative, stating that the *Australian Crime Commission Act 2002* (Cth) does not authorise an examiner to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the charged offence. As a result, the second question regarding the constitutional validity of such a power did not arise.