Z v Australian Crime Commission [2010] FCA 803

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Z v Australian Crime Commission [2010] FCA 803 Citation: Z v Australian Crime Commission [2010] FCA 803

Parties: Z v AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION

File number: NTD 21 of 2008

Judge: REEVES J

Date of judgment: 30 July 2010

Corrigendum: 23 November 2010

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – challenge to authorisation and determination made by resolution of Board of first respondent under Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – instrument authorised investigation and determined it to be special investigation – whether determination invalid because Board's resolution was not a determination in writing that the investigation was a special investigation – whether determination invalid because Chair of Board did not convene or attend meeting at which determination made – whether determination invalid because of various deficiencies in resolution of the Board – whether determination invalid because Board did not set out the reasons for decision including findings on material questions of fact and refer to evidence or other material on which those findings were based – whether determination invalid because purposes stated in determination exceed scope of investigation under Act – whether determination invalid because Board did not actually draw conclusion as to whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective – whether determination invalid because Board did not resolve class or classes of persons who were to be able to participate in investigation – whether determination invalid because Board did not identify the circumstances, or allegations, constituting the federally relevant criminal activity Held: application dismissed – all grounds of challenge to determination fail ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – challenge to a summons issued by second respondent under Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – whether summons invalid because determinations upon which they are based are invalid – whether summons invalid because copy of determination did not accompany summons – whether summons invalid because it did not require applicant to give evidence as "witness" – whether summons invalid because it was not accompanied by written statement of rights and obligations – whether second respondent could not have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue summons Held: application dismissed – all grounds of challenge to summons fail