De Vonk, H.J. v Deputy Commission of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1995] FCA 623

CATCHWORDS PRIVILEGE - TAXATION - privilege against self-incrimination - notice served on taxpayer requiring attendance at Australian Taxation Office - notice required taxpayer to give evidence concerning certain matters - taxpayer facing trial on criminal charges arising out of same matters - whether privilege against self-incrimination abrogated by statutory scheme - whether contempt of court or other interference with the course of justice. Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s.264 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) ss.8C, 8D Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ss.5,6 Mortimer v. Brown (1970) 122 CLR 493 Victoria v. The Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers' Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25 Hammond v. The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188 Sorby v. The Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v. Trade Practices Commission (1983) 152 CLR 328 Controlled Consultants Pty Ltd v. Commissioner for Corporate Affairs (1985) 156 CLR 385 Police Service Board v. Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 Hamilton v. Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486 Industrial Equity Ltd v. Deputy Commission of Taxation (1990) 170 CLR 649 Stergis v. Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 89 ATC 4442 Donovan v. Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 92 ATC 4114 HUGO JOHN DE VONK v. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA No. WAG 138 of 1994 CARR J. PERTH 16 AUGUST 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT ) OF AUSTRALIA ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 138 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION ) B E T W E E N: HUGO JOHN DE VONK Applicant and DEPUTY COMMISSION OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Respondent CORAM: CARR J. PLACE: PERTH DATE: 16 AUGUST 1995 MINUTE OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS AND DECLARES THAT: 1. The applicant is not entitled to refuse to answer questions put to him by the respondent's officers pursuant to the notice dated 1 November 1994 merely on the ground that his answers thereto may tend to incriminate him. 2. The conduct by the respondent's officers of an interrogation of the applicant pursuant to the abovementioned notice prior to the hearing of the criminal charges referred to in the applicant's affidavit sworn 30 March 1995 may, depending upon the specific questions asked and all other relevant circumstances, constitute a contempt of the court before which such charges are to be heard. If so, the decision to ask such questions is not authorised by s.264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth). 3. The application be otherwise dismissed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of Order is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.