Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2015] FCAFC 7

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2015] FCAFC 7 Citation: Hird v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2015] FCAFC 7

Appeal from: Essendon Football Club v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority [2014] FCA 1019

Parties: JAMES ALBERT HIRD v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY

File number: VID 569 of 2014

Judges: KENNY, BESANKO AND WHITE JJ

Date of judgment: 30 January 2015

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Investigation conducted by Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority in cooperation with Australian Football League – Whether "joint" or cooperative investigation ultra vires the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 (Cth), Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006 (Cth) and NAD Scheme – Investigation authorised by legislative regime – ASADA entitled to rely on use of compulsory powers by AFL – Whether investigation conducted for improper purposes – Investigation conducted for lawful purpose of investigating possible anti-doping rule violations – Whether NAD Scheme personal information unlawfully disclosed at interviews – No unlawful disclosure as information given directly by interviewees to both ASADA and AFL – Whether notices issued under cl 4.07A of NAD Scheme invalid – Notices not based on information unlawfully obtained – Appeal dismissed. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 (Cth), Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006 (Cth) and NAD Scheme – Relevance of international anti-doping instruments – Operation of cl 2.04(j) of NAD Scheme and contractual regime of AFL – Scope and operation of power in s 22 of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2009 (Cth) "to do all things necessary or convenient". PRIVILEGE – Whether CEO unlawfully facilitated abrogation of interviewees' common law rights against self-incrimination and exposure to civil penalties – Appellant and players accepted contractual arrangement with AFL requiring cooperation with investigation by ASADA – Appellant and players legally represented and claimed no privilege. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether appellant able to challenge use of compulsory powers by AFL on appeal – Not in issue before primary judge – Appellant bound by conduct of case at trial.