//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2004] FCA 1476
Federal Court of Australia
2004-11-17
Finn J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The two issues raised in this matter - and in the parallel proceeding of X v Australian Crime Commission [2004] FCA 1475 - are (i) whether the Board of the Australian Crime Commission ("the ACC") had power to, and did, lawfully amend an authorisation and determination it had previously made for a special investigation by the ACC into "federally relevant criminal activity"; and (ii) whether s 30(2) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ("the ACC Act") has abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to offences against the laws of a foreign country ("foreign offences"). 2 There are short answers to each of these questions. As to the first, the ACC had an implied power to make the amendment it did (i.e. to extend the period of the special investigation) in virtue of the provisions of s 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). As to the second and in light of the decision of the Full Court of this Court in A v Boulton (2004) 207 ALR 342, I am bound to conclude that "the [ACC] Act abrogated any privilege against self-incrimination that the [applicant] might otherwise have had in an examination under the Act": [72]. It is immaterial whether the possible incrimination was in relation, variously, to a Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign offence. For the purposes of the ACC Act, it is the privilege itself that has been abrogated not particular possible applications of it: Barnes v Boulton [2004] FCA 1219 at [30], [37]-[41].
THE APPLICATION AND THE DECISIONS UNDER REVIEW 3 As filed, this application for relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) challenged three distinct decisions of the respondents. In light both of what has been abandoned by the applicant at the hearing and of an amendment allowed to be made to the application, the matters in issue have been reduced to the two noted above. The decisions now subject to review are, first, what I will describe as the ACC's "Amendment to the Authorisation and Determination" of 28 April 2004 and, secondly, the decision of an examiner appointed under the ACC Act which rejected the applicant's claim to refuse to answer questions on the ground, amongst others, of self-incrimination in relation to offenders under a foreign law. 4 The applicant is the spouse of one of the persons whose conduct was being enquired into by the examiner. She had been summoned as a witness under s 28 of the ACC Act.
CONCLUSION 5 I have foreshadowed my conclusions above. The reasons for them are elaborated at length in X's case in which the same two issues were agitated. I incorporate those reasons by reference. 6 I will order that the application be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn.
Dated: 17 November 2004 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Burnett Solicitor for the Applicant: Patsouris and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A Southall QC with Dr S Donaghue Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Crime Commission
Date of Hearing: 6 October 2004 Date of Judgment: 17 November 2004
Loprete
Australian Crime Commission