Federal Court of Australia Lusty v CRA20 [2020] FCA 1737 File number: NSD 653 of 2020 Judgment of: ABRAHAM J Date of judgment: 3 December 2020 Catchwords: CONTEMPT OF COURT – sentencing – contempt of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission – contempt punishable as contempt of Federal Court – respondent in contempt by refusing to answer questions in examination – where respondent pleaded guilty – where respondent did not subsequently purge contempts despite opportunities to do so – where summons no longer extant - fixed term of imprisonment imposed Legislation: Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ss 7, 7C, 20, 21, 22, 28, 30, 34A, 34B, 46B Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Special Operation Authorisation and Determination (High Risk and Emerging Drugs No. 4) 2018 Criminal Code (Cth) Part 9.1, Division 400 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Part 42 Cases cited: Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425 Anderson v BYF19 [2019] FCA 1959 Anderson v DKH18 [2018] FCA 1571 Anderson v DKH18 (No 2) [2019] FCA 1352 Anderson v GPY18 [2019] FCA 954 Anderson v XLVII [2015] FCA 19 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Info4pc.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949; (2002) 121 FCR 24 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 6) [2012] FCA 809 Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury et al (No 2) [2011] WASC 26; (2011) 205 A Crim R 386 Hannaford v HH [2010] FCA 1214; (2010) 205 A Crim R 366 Hannaford v HH (No 2) [2012] FCA 560; (2012) 203 FCR 501 Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 Hughes v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 319; (2004) 247 FCR 277 Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90 Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 83; (2006) 149 FCR 494 R v Drever [2010] SASCFC 27 R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550 Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc [2011] FCAFC 17; (2011) 276 ALR 596 Von Doussa v Owens (No 3) (1982) 31 SASR 116 Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584 Wood v Galea [1995] NSWSC 100; (1995) 79 A Crim R 567 Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Federal Crime and Related Proceedings Number of paragraphs: 62 Date of last submissions: 23 November 2020 Date of hearing: 9 November 2020 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr C Hutchins of Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D McMahon Solicitor for the Respondent: Murphy's Lawyers Inc ORDERS NSD 653 of 2020 BETWEEN: DAVID LUSTY, AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 46B OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 (CTH) Applicant AND: CRA20 Respondent order made by: ABRAHAM J DATE OF ORDER: 3 december 2020 THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The respondent is guilty of the charge of contempt of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (formerly the Australian Crime Commission) in that, being a witness appearing at an examination before an examiner on 31 January 2020, he refused to answer fourteen questions which the examiner required him to answer. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent is to be imprisoned for a period of 8 months. 2. The custodial period of 8 months imprisonment is to date from 3 December 2020 to 2 August 2021. 3. A warrant for the respondent's committal to prison be issued and with a copy of these Orders, be provided to Corrective Services NSW. 4. The parties be at liberty to apply in the event that the respondent purges his contempt. 5. The orders previously made prohibiting the publication of the respondent's name, and suppressing access to the court file are to continue. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the application to be assessed if not agreed. 7. There be liberty to apply. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ABRAHAM J: 1 The respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of contempt of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) committed on 31 January 2020 by his refusal during a compulsory examination conducted pursuant to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (ACC Act) to answer fourteen questions which he was required to answer. 2 The applicant, an examiner appointed under s 46B of the ACC Act, seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the respondent is guilty of contempt of the ACIC contrary to s 34A(a)(ii) of the ACC Act, and orders for punishment of that contempt. 3 On 4 September 2020, the particulars of the contempt charge was read to the respondent and the respondent pleaded guilty to each of the fourteen contempts particularised in the statement of charge. Accordingly, it falls to me to sentence him. 4 For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a fixed sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in the present case and I impose a term of imprisonment of 8 months. I order that there be liberty to apply if the respondent chooses to purge his contempt and if that were to occur I would reconsider the sentence and subject to any further submissions, would be minded to suspend the remainder of the sentence. Evidence 5 In support of the application the applicant relied on the following material at the hearing: (1) originating application dated 10 June 2020; (2) statement of charge dated 10 June 2020; (3) affidavit of [REDACTED] affirmed on 4 June 2020; (4) affidavit of Cameron Hutchins sworn 24 September 2020; (5) outline of submissions dated 25 September 2020; (6) an aide memoire of comparative sentences. 6 In addition, filed after the hearing with leave, was the affidavit of Shane Douglas Neilson sworn 13 November 2020. 7 The respondent relied on the following material: (1) outline of submissions filed on 29 October 2020; (2) character references from his employer dated 21 October 2020, a work colleague dated 23 October 2020, and his sister dated 21 October 2020. 8 Following the filing of the affidavit of Shane Douglas Neilson dated 13 November 2020 by the applicant the respondent, with leave, filed supplementary submissions on 23 November 2020. 9 In that submission the respondent objected to [25(b)] and [25(c)] of the affidavit of Shane Douglas Neilson on the basis that it is outside the leave granted, and that in any event, it contains opinions of such generality as to be of no real probative value. Those paragraphs are outside the leave granted, and, if evidence was sought to be led on those topics it ought to have been done in chief. The paragraphs are also of a general nature. That said, for the reasons given below, even if those paragraphs were considered they do not affect the result. Statutory and regulatory background 10 The ACIC, which is established by s 7 of ACC Act, has functions including the collection, correlation, analysis and dissemination of criminal information and intelligence, and undertaking "special operations" relating to "federally relevant criminal activity": s 7C(1)(c). 11 The Board of the ACIC has issued a number of determinations about high risk and emerging drugs and has determined that they are special operations. 12 Relevantly, the examination in this matter was for the purposes of a Special ACIC Operation being undertaken by the ACIC pursuant to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Special Operation Authorisation and Determination (High Risk and Emerging Drugs No. 4) 2018. This instrument authorised an intelligence operation to determine whether federally relevant criminal activity had been committed, was being committed or may be committed; and if so, the nature and extent of the activity and the identity and role of entities involved in it. The intelligence operation concerned activities connected with high risk and emerging drugs, including offences under Part 9.1 (serious drug offences) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (Criminal Code) punishable by 3 years imprisonment or more and a range of offences connected with a course of activity involving the commission of the above mentioned offences, such as money laundering offences contrary to Division 400 of the Criminal Code. 13 In carrying out the ACC functions, examiners appointed under Div 3 of Pt 2 of the ACC Act may require the production of specified information or documents, and examiners or police officers on the staff of the ACIC may obtain and execute search warrants: ss 20-22 of the ACC Act. An examiner may summon a person to appear before the examiner to give evidence and to produce such documents or other things as are referred to in the summons: s 28 of the ACC Act. It is an offence for persons summonsed to appear as a witness at an examination not to attend as required, to refuse or fail to take an oath or affirmation as required, to refuse or fail to answer a question that they are required to answer, and to refuse or fail to produce a document or thing which they were required by the summons to produce: s 30 of the ACC Act. 14 It is evident that the examination of persons by examiners, such as the respondent in this case, is an important means by which the ACIC obtains information relevant to the discharge of its functions: Anderson v DKH18 [2018] FCA 1571 (DKH18) at [6]; Anderson v XLVII [2015] FCA 19 (XLVII) at [15]. 15 Persons appearing as witnesses at an examination before an ACIC examiner are in contempt of the ACIC if they refuse or fail to answer a question which they are required to answer by the examiner: s 34A(a)(ii) of the ACC Act. If an examiner is of the opinion that a person is in contempt of the ACIC during an examination, the examiner may apply to this Court for the person to be dealt with in relation to the contempt: s 34B(1)(a) of the ACC Act. 16 If the Court finds the person was in contempt of the ACIC, the Court may deal with the person as if the acts or omissions involved constituted contempt of this Court: s 34B(5) of the ACC Act. Contempt of this Court is addressed by s 31 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and the procedure for punishment is contained in Pt 42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011(Cth). Background 17 The respondent attended an examination on 31 January 2020 under compulsion of a summons issued by the applicant requiring him to attend to give evidence pursuant to s 28 of the ACC Act. The summons stated that he was required to give evidence in relation to matters relating to "specified criminal activity" involving "high risk and emerging drugs" (as defined in the Determination), including 'methylamphetamine' and that that may include evidence in relation to serious drug offences contrary to Part 9.1 of the Criminal Code, as well as activities that may be connected to such offences including money laundering and other related unlawful activities. 18 The respondent was represented by counsel at the examination. 19 At the commencement of the examination the applicant stated to the respondent: The ACC believes that you can provide relevant information about these matters and this belief is based on information, intelligence and evidence the ACC and other law enforcement agencies have acquired from a number of different sources over a significant period. And I should warn you that you and a number of your associates have been the subject of a major long term criminal investigation involving extensive electronic and physical surveillance, including of you personally. 20 The applicant also explained, inter alia, that the examination was conducted in private with only members of staff of the ACIC present and that the ACIC would treat his evidence as confidential and that the respondent was afforded protection against self-incrimination under s 30(5) of the ACC Act. The applicant explained the obligations of the respondent as a witness, and the consequence of giving false or misleading evidence, or of failing to give evidence. 21 The respondent took an affirmation and answered a number of questions asked by counsel assisting. These questions related to his personal details and the use of encrypted devices. After the examination had been in session for 24 minutes it was adjourned to provide the respondent with an opportunity to speak with his barrister. Shortly after the examination resumed the respondent informed the applicant that he did not wish to answer any questions. 22 The following exchange occurred: Mr Lusty: And [CRA20], is it the case that you intend to refuse to answer any more questions? CRA20: Yes. Mr Lusty: And can you tell us why? CRA20: I just don't wish to continue. Mr Lusty: Can you identify any reasons why you don't wish to continue? CRA20: No reason. Mr Lusty: I'm giving you a chance now to do if you've got any fears or concerns to just let us know. CRA20: Just for my safety, that's it. Mr Lusty: And can you elaborate on that? CRA20: No, I just don't wish to talk about it. Mr Lusty: Are you aware that a failure or refusal to answer questions here is a criminal offence? CRA20: Yes, I am. Mr Lusty: Punishable by imprisonment for up to five (5) years. CRA20: Yes. Mr Lusty: Are you also aware that it's contempt of the ACC? CRA20: Yeah. Mr Lusty: What that means is that, if contempt proceedings are commenced against you, you could be held in prison indefinitely until you purge the contempt which means until you actually agree to come and answer the questions, that's a possibility. CRA20: Yeah. Mr Lusty: You understand that? CRA20: Yeah. Mr Lusty: And you still intend to refuse to answer questions? CRA20: Yes, I do. 23 The applicant then informed the respondent, inter alia, of the ACIC's belief that the respondent could provide highly relevant information relating to a major drug syndicate, as follows: Well look what I want to say is that the ACC believes that you can provide highly relevant information, relating to a major drug syndicate with connections overseas that operates in multiple jurisdictions in Australia. The ACC believes that this syndicate involves at least a dozen persons and while the syndicate has recently been temporarily disrupted through the recent arrests of a few people, and the closing down of a major Meth lab in Captains Flat, the ACC believes that the syndicate and particularly the principals of the syndicate continue to have the capability and the intention to engage in major drug trafficking activities that can cause immense harm to the community. Our aim is to try and stop this from occurring, that's why you were called here today and it was a decision that was not made lightly. As I've said, we believe that you can provide highly relevant information in relation to this Special Operation we're undertaking, and if you refuse to answer questions that will significantly prejudice our Special Operation … 24 The respondent then refused to answer fourteen questions which he had been asked and required to answer. Seven of those questions related to: when the respondent had started working as a driver (contempt 1); whether the respondent drives a Ford Falcon (contempt 2); whether the Ford Falcon which the respondent drives has a hidden compartment (contempt 3); who provided the respondent with instructions regarding deliveries (contempt 4); whether the respondent had told others about his attendance at the examination (contempt 5); whether the respondent had been to premises where illegal drugs are manufactured (contempt 6) and; who is involved in the distribution of illegal methamphetamine in Australia (contempt 14). 25 The remaining seven questions (contempt 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) related to whether the respondent knew, recognised or could identify each of seven male persons depicted in seven different photographs. 26 After the respondent was asked the fourteen questions which are the subject of each of the particulars of contempt, the examination was adjourned. On the resumption of the examination about one hour later, and near the conclusion of the examination, the applicant asked the respondent if he maintained his refusal to answer questions. The respondent confirmed that he did. 27 When the respondent initially indicated his refusal to answer questions at the resumption of the examination, the applicant again explained to the respondent that failure or refusal to answer questions is a criminal offence and that failure or refusal was also a contempt which could result in imprisonment indefinitely until the contempt is purged. The respondent indicated he understood this and still intended to refuse to answer questions. The respondent acknowledged he had a barrister who could advise him, that he had had a significant break and that he had received advice from his barrister. The respondent agreed he understood the gravity of the situation he was in. 28 During the examination, as referred to above at [22] the applicant asked the respondent why he intended to refuse to answer any more questions. In response to the applicant's question, the respondent said, 'I just don't wish to continue'. When asked to identify any reasons why he did not wish to continue, he said, 'No reason'. The applicant asked the respondent to tell him if he had any fears or concerns. The respondent said 'Just for my safety, that's it', but when invited to elaborate on that by the applicant, he declined to do so. 29 On all but one occasion when the respondent refused to answer the question the applicant asked him if he wanted to explain his position. The respondent declined to do so. 30 As a result of an ACIC policy decision made in August 2020, "all extant summonses issued under the pre-28 July 2020 determinations were withdrawn". The summons to the respondent was withdrawn on 3 September 2020, and the applicant sent an email to the counsel assisting that day in which he stated that he still wished to obtain truthful answers to the questions, and that if the respondent did wish to purge his contempt by answering the questions that would be facilitated by issuing a fresh summons pursuant to the most recent ACC Board Authorisation and Determination. Mr Nielson's evidence is that that Determination is "very similar". The applicant's solicitor wrote to the respondent's legal representative on 4 September 2020 to advise him, inter alia, that the summons had been withdrawn, that the applicant had "discharged [his] client from his obligations under ACIC Summons No. S0171/19", that the applicant still wished to obtain truthful answers from the respondent which in the applicant's view would be highly relevant to the work of the ACIC, and that if the respondent decides to purge his contempt a summons will be re-issued. Relevant legal principles 31 In Anderson v BYF19 [2019] FCA 1959 at [42]-[49] I summarised the principles applicable to sentencing for contempt offences in this context. The following is taken from those reasons. 32 As I observed, in DKH18, White J summarised some of the authorities which reflect on the significance and importance of the offence of contempt (both in the context of the ACC Act and more broadly), at [24]-[27] as follows: [24] A number of the authorities bear out the seriousness with which conduct of the present kind is viewed. In Von Doussa v Owens (No 3) (1982) 31 SASR 116, the contempt of the defendant consisted of a failure to comply with an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia which required him to answer questions put to him by an inspector appointed under the Securities Industry (South Australia) Code. King CJ (with whom Zelling and Wells JJ agreed) said, at 117-8: The effectiveness of the administration of justice depends upon compliance by witnesses with the legal obligation to answer relevant questions. This is so whether the proceedings are in a court of law or before some other tribunal or authority which Parliament has empowered to compel answers. No private undertaking can be regarded as an excuse for failure to comply with that legal obligation. This investigation is still in progress in that the inspector has not, we are told, lodged his report, and the applicant still has the opportunity to purge his contempt by giving the answers required. His continuing non-compliance with the Court's order to do so amounts to a deliberate and considered persistent defiance of the authority of the law. It cannot be condoned or tolerated. … It is to be emphasised that [the] answers were sought not in any private litigation between citizens but in the course of an investigation authorised and established pursuant to the powers conferred by an Act of Parliament in the public interest. The Court must do what it can to prevail upon the applicant to see the matter in a clearer light and to comply with his legal obligation. [25] King CJ referred with approval to a statement of Mitchell J that, if witnesses were able to gain the impression that information sought by an inspector could be withheld "by the mere payment of a tariff", investigations may well prove completely ineffective, at 118. [26] A statement of Moffitt P in Thelander v Woodward [1981] 1 NSWLR 644 at 646 is to like effect: Where appropriate, the sanctions of contempt and a charge under s 21 should be pursued with vigour and expedition. Indeed unless this is done an inquiry is at risk of becoming a lame one, which does not reach out to the leaders or the central planning of crime. [27] In Hannaford v HH [2010] FCA 1214; (2010) 205 A Crim R 366, Dodds-Streeton J noted: [57] While the respondent pleaded guilty, the contempt was extremely serious. The answers to the specified questions were sought by the ACC in pursuit of its functions in the public interest. As noted in comparable cases, the ACC's examination processes would be hamstrung if all witnesses adopted the respondent's approach. Dodds-Streeton J also noted, at [59], that a primary objective of the legislation enabling this Court to deal with contempts of the ACIC was "the introduction of a compelling incentive for an unco-operative witness to co-operate in a timely way, by providing the information sought while it remains useful for the ACC's purposes". 33 The purposes of punishment for a contempt constituted by a refusal to answer questions in a Court or Commission of Enquiry are said to be retribution for the contempt, coercion of the person into answering the question, and the deterrence of others: XLVII at [49] per White J; Wood v Galea [1995] NSWSC 100; (1995) 79 A Crim R 567 (Wood v Galea) at 571 per Hunt CJ; Von Doussa v Owens (No 3) (1982) 31 SASR 116 (Von Doussa v Owens (No 3)) at 118 per King CJ (Zelling and Wells JJ agreeing); Hannaford v HH [2010] FCA 1214; (2010) 205 A Crim R 366 (Hannaford) at [39] per Dodds-Streeton J citing Wood v Galea at 571. A contempt constituted by a refusal to answer questions in a Court or Commission of Enquiry is usually to be regarded as a serious contempt: XLVII at [49]; Wood v Galea at 571; Von Doussa v Owens (No 3) at 117-8 per King CJ (Zelling and Wells JJ agreeing). 34 It has been recognised, that because of the importance of the element of coercion, an order for imprisonment for an indefinite period will often be appropriate: XLVII at [49] per White J citing Wood v Galea at 573; Von Doussa v Owens (No 3); Hannaford at [60]-[63], although coercion is inappropriate if the person has purged his or her contempt, or if it is no longer necessary to obtain answers to the questions giving rise to the contempt: XLVII at [49] per White J; Wood v Galea at 573. 35 In Anderson v GPY18 [2019] FCA 954, Banks-Smith J at [25]-[27] referred to the considerations identified by Dunford J in Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183 at 185 as a convenient guide when sentencing for criminal contempt both in the context of statutory contempt provisions and common law: and see for example: DKH18 at [29]; Allbeury v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 84; (2012) 42 WAR 425 (Allbeury) at [216]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jutsen (No 6) [2012] FCA 809 at [9]; Hannaford v HH (No 2) [2012] FCA 560; (2012) 203 FCR 501 (Hannaford (No 2)) at [27]. Although it must be acknowledged that the list of considerations is not exhaustive: Hannaford (No 2) at [73]. 36 Dunford J identified ten considerations in assessing the proper punishment for contempt in the following terms: (1) the seriousness of the contempt proved; (2) whether the contemnor was aware of the consequences to himself of what he did; (3) the actual consequences of the contempt on the relevant trial or inquiry; (4) whether the contempt was committed in the context of serious crime; (5) the reason for the contempt; (6) whether the contemnor has received any benefit by indicating an intention to give evidence; (7) whether there has been any apology or public expression of contrition; (8) the character and antecedents of the contemnor; (9) general and personal deterrence; and (10) denunciation of the contempt. 37 And see: Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v Design Elegance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 83; (2006) 149 FCR 494 at [25] per Merkel J; Kazal v Thunder Studios Inc (California) [2017] FCAFC 111; (2017) 256 FCR 90 (Kazal) at [101]-[103] per Besanko, Wigney and Bromwich JJ. 38 There are a range of penalties available to the Court in punishing for contempt: see Hughes v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2004] FCAFC 319; (2004) 247 FCR 277, in which the Full Court (French, Emmett and Dowsett JJ) at [55] citing Nicholson J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Info4pc.com Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 949; (2002) 121 FCR 24 at [138], set out the range of penalties as follows: (1) to commit a contemnor to prison for an indefinite period of time; (2) to impose a fine for a wilful breach of an order or undertaking; (3) to impose a daily fine; (4) to order the sequestration of the assets of a contemnor; and (5) to suspend on condition any sentence of imprisonment that it might impose in respect to contempt. 39 In GPY18 at [29] Banks-Smith J provided an analysis of some of the sentences imposed for the offence of contempt, including for the refusal or failure to answer questions, which reflects the breadth of the sentencing options. Consideration 40 The respondent's contempt was deliberate. The respondent was repeatedly informed of the consequences of his refusal to answer the questions and given every opportunity to speak to his counsel to obtain legal advice and to consider that legal advice. In the context of the statutory scheme, this offence of contempt is properly characterised as serious: see for example: DKH18 at [18]-[24]. 41 As I observed in BYF19 at [54], the respondent's approach in refusing to answer questions undercuts the effectiveness of the scheme which authorises these compulsory examinations. The examination processes would be hamstrung if all witnesses adopted the approach that the respondent has taken. The investigations of which the examination was a part, are of significant importance to the protection of the broader community. The serious impact on the community of illicit drug use and supply, and associated crime is uncontentious. General deterrence must necessarily play a prominent role in any such sentence. 42 The special intelligence operation is ongoing and the applicant deposed that a delay in the continuation of the examination has already impacted adversely on the ACIC's ability to obtain and analyse current intelligence relating to the special operation. The respondent took issue with the evidence presented by the applicant, which resulted in leave being granted to the applicant to file additional material. I will return to this topic below. That said, I am satisfied that the respondent's conduct frustrated and impeded the examination and, in turn, the progress of the ACIC investigation. 43 The respondent has chosen not to purge his contempt despite subsequently being given repeated opportunities to do so. 44 In the context of declining to give any reason for the refusal to answer the questions, when asked by the applicant if he had any fears or concerns, the respondent said "Just for my safety, that's it", but when invited to elaborate on that by the applicant, he declined to do so. It is also apparent from the transcript of the examination that his counsel informed the applicant that that was the respondent's instructions to him, and that it also related to the safety of his family. 45 It is well established that fear of retribution will rarely be given mitigatory weight: GPY18 at [31] citing R v Drever [2010] SASCFC 27 at [24] and Allbeury at [42]-[43]; Hannaford (No. 2) at [33]; BFY19 at [58]-[61]. This is because the exercise of such powers as possessed by the ACIC to facilitate the investigation of matters of this nature would be significantly impeded if mitigating weight were to be given to an assertion of fear of retribution as a reason for refusing to provide information. 46 This fear expressed was no more than a generalised fear. There is no evidence of any specific threat having been made to either the respondent or his family. That was so at the time of the questioning and continues to be the case at the time of sentence. It is based on what is really seen to be inherent in being involved with criminal activity of the type being investigated: BFY19 at [63]. As was the case in GPY18 and Hannaford (No 2) and BFY19, the respondent offers no more than a generalised fear which, in the assessment of mitigation, cannot be given any real weight. 47 The applicant submitted that having regard to, in particular, the need to coerce the respondent into purging his contempt, as well as the purposes of retribution for the contempt and the deterrence of others, an immediate and indefinite custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. 48 It was submitted that the imposition of a fixed term of imprisonment is unlikely to have the same coercive effect as an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment was said to send an appropriate message to persons who may find themselves in a position similar to the respondent that their obligation to answer questions that they are required to answer before an ACIC examiner cannot be avoided by mere payment of a tariff by way of imprisonment or fine. The applicant relied on a number of previous cases which he submitted provided guidance, and supported the approach he contended for. I note that care must be taken when considering previous cases, as each turned on their own facts. Some involved factual findings not urged upon me and circumstances different from those in this case. 49 As a result, the primary focus of the respondent's submission was to contend that a fixed sentence should be imposed as opposed to indeterminate detention. In part, the respondent's submission as to the reason for his refusal to answer questions was directed to the contention that given his basis for refusal the position is unlikely to change, and therefore an indeterminate sentence should not be imposed. The respondent, appropriately, did not challenge the seriousness of the offending. The respondent submitted that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity after he had retained counsel. That is a matter to which I give some weight as it indicates some acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, and has utilitarian value. Although it may be said that a conviction was inevitable, a guilty plea still has some value: see GPY18 at [34]; Hannaford (No 2) at [82]. The respondent has no prior convictions. The respondent's submission as to his personal circumstances was scant. This appears to have been a choice made by the respondent, but has the inevitable consequence that this Court has little information which could be considered in mitigation. The respondent relied on three character references. The respondent relied on a disease he suffers, which is referred to in the references. I note that "generally speaking ill health will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment only when it appears that imprisonment will be a greater burden on the offender by reason of his state of health or when there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on the offender's health": R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587 at 589. However, no medical evidence was adduced as to the effect of the disease or any impact a sentence may have, and in that circumstance the respondent accepted that may mean it will only be given limited weight. 50 As I observed above at [43] the respondent has been given many opportunities to purge his contempt, not only during the examination but during the conduct of these proceedings. The respondent declined to do so in a context where he is well aware of the consequences of his failure to do so. He has been represented by counsel both at the examination and during sentencing. The respondent has been resolute in his approach to date. Given the deliberate refusal to answer the questions in light of the opportunity to purge his contempt, which would mitigate his offence, coercion and deterrence must play an important feature in the sentence imposed. It necessarily follows that personal circumstances and mitigating factors specific to the respondent carry less weight: Hannaford (No 2) at [32] citing Corruption and Crime Commission v Allbeury et al (No 2) [2011] WASC 26; (2011) 205 A Crim R 386 (Allbeury (No 2)). 51 Although the respondent submitted that his approach to date made it less likely that an indeterminate sentence would have a coercive effect on him to answer the questions, the experience of custody may nonetheless have such effect: see for example Anderson v DKH18 (No 2) [2019] FCA 1352. 52 As noted above, the respondent criticised the quality and extent of the applicant's evidence as to the significance of the respondent's evidence now to the investigation and the desire for the examination to continue. The applicant's submission initially was to the effect that the cases did not refer to there being a need to produce evidence of the situation as at the time of sentencing. However, each case must turn on its own facts. In a context where the applicant was seeking an indeterminate sentence, and where the evidence in support from the applicant was rather narrow and was filed at the time of the application, which was some months before the hearing, there plainly was a need for the applicant to produce further evidence. That said, as I noted above at [30], an affidavit of the applicant's solicitor was filed approximately 2 months prior to the hearing which attaches a letter dated 4 September 2020 from him to the respondent's lawyer in which it is said that he was informed that the applicant remains of the view that the answers if truthful would be highly relevant. 53 The affidavit of Mr Neilson filed by the applicant on 16 November 2020 contained further evidence as to the desire to question the respondent. Given that the applicant is seeking indeterminate detention it was incumbent on him to provide evidence of the basis for doing so, and general statements made in the affidavit filed some months before the hearing, by themselves, are of little weight. The nature of the evidence in this recent affidavit is more akin to that which ought to have been proffered in chief. 54 In the affidavit of [REDACTED] affirmed on 4 June 2020 and filed at the time of this application, it was asserted that the respondent's refusal to answer questions had delayed the investigation. I note in that context there is an unexplained delay in making this application, with the respondent refusing to answer the questions on 31 January 2020, some 4 months before these contempt proceedings were instituted. These proceedings could, if desired, have been instituted in a more timely manner: see for example: DKH18. That reflects on the urgency of obtaining the information, and on any submission about the refusal to answer delaying the investigation. That does not detract from the fact the ACIC still wishes the applicant to give evidence in relation to the questions asked. It does however, put into context the submission that an indeterminate sentence should be imposed, to coerce the respondent to give evidence. 55 After the application was filed there was some further delay, through no fault of the applicant, as there were issues that arose in serving the material on the respondent and bringing him before the Court. The consequence is that this hearing is many months after the application was filed, and after the examination. Delay alone will not necessarily render the information sought by the ACIC irrelevant. Rather, that heightened the need to properly address the current desire for the evidence when submitting that an indeterminate sentence should be imposed. 56 However, there is a more fundamental issue with the applicant's submission, and one not really grappled with by the applicant. "The purpose of making such orders is to endeavour to coerce the contemnor into purging their contempt by complying with his or her legal obligations": Allbeury (No 2) at [12] per Martin CJ. As noted above, on 3 September 2020 the respondent was discharged by the applicant from further compliance with the summons under which he gave evidence. He has no extant legal obligation under that summons. It is not a sufficient answer for the applicant to submit that it still seeks the answers to the questions and would issue a summons in similar terms in relation to a similar Determination. That does not create an extant obligation. It would be inappropriate in those circumstances to order indeterminate detention. 57 That said, that there is no extant obligation, does not alter the fact that the respondent could choose to purge his contempt by answering the questions sought by the ACIC. 58 In those circumstances I do not accept the applicant's submission that the appropriate order is one of indeterminate detention. A fixed sentence will be imposed. 59 In any decision relating to sentencing, an important consideration is consistency with the kinds of sentences imposed in comparable cases. Like cases should be treated in like manner: Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584 at [6]; The Queen v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 256 CLR 550 (The Queen v Pham) at [28]. The consistency sought is consistency in the application of relevant legal principles: The Queen v Pham at [28] citing Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520 at [49]. For the application of this principle to the offence of contempt see: Vaysman v Deckers Outdoor Corporation Inc [2011] FCAFC 17; (2011) 276 ALR 596 at [51]; Kazal at [113] – [118]. 60 In those circumstances, a consideration of the authorities and the facts of this matter reflects that a sentence of full-time imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence. The respondent did not suggest otherwise. Sentence 61 I have taken into account all the submissions and evidence put by the applicant and the respondent, and the relevant legal principles. 62 Having taken into account all relevant matters I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 8 months. I order that there be liberty to apply if the respondent chooses to purge his contempt and if that were to occur I would reconsider the sentence and subject to any further submissions, I would be minded to suspend the remainder of the sentence. I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Abraham. Associate: Dated: 3 December 2020