C v National Crime Authority [1987] FCA 685

SOSGMENT N.G8S/ Bz

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - order of review - privilege against self

incrimination - whether applicant entitled to refuse to answer any further questions during hearing before National Crime Authority - whether the privilege could be claimed ona

"blanket objection."

Administrative Decisisns tJudicial Reviawi Act 1977

C vs. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY

NORTHROP J. 27 NOVEMBER 15987

MELBOURNE

RECEIVED ~S3 BEC i987

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA,

PRINCIBA| REGISTRY

Stee eo pore ee

ue ee at ee,

oe cere

Soros

oo

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISTON

BETWEEN : c and NATIONAL CRIME AUTHOPITY COURT: NORTHROP J. DATE : 27 NOVEMBER 1987 PLACE: MELBOURNE

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: -

ba) a id ry cr

The decision of the Auth y be atfirmed.

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the Authority 5 costs application.

Applicant

Respondent

(Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in 0.36 of Rules of Court.)

the

the

st

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) V. No. G 239 of 1387 ) )

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

C Applicant and NATTONAL CRIME AUTHORITY? Respondent

COURT: NORTHROF J. H Lua)

27 NOVEMBER 15387

mW foal Hod a it

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The issue raised by this application is whether the decision of the National Crime Authority ("the Authority")

constituted under the National Crime Authority Act 1984 made

on 19 August 13387 that the claim by the applicant to he entitled to refuse to answer any further question put to him during a hearing béing conducted by the Authority under 53.25

of the Act was not justified, should be set aside.

say eee ae pena

"p- ae

The nature oF a hearing under 5.25 15 discussed in

+

on for judgment ain A and Others v.

wn UI

detail in thea ¢

m

a National Crime Authority published today and those reasons should be read as if they form part of these reasons. In fact, the applicant is the same person who is described in those reasons as the first witness. It 15 not proposed ts repeat in these reasons the analysis of parts of the Act as contained in those reasons but they are adopted for the purpose of these reasons. For present purposes it 15 sutficient to say that the applicant was summonsed to appear before the Authority to give evidence at the nearing being