Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE JJ

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH) INFORMANT

AND

KELLI ANNE KEATING DEFENDANT

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating [2013] HCA 20 8 May 2013 M5/2013

ORDER

1. The questions in the stated case dated 19 December 2012 be answered as follows:

Question 1

Does section 66A of the Administration Act create a duty, from 20 March 2000, for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to inform the Department of the occurrence of an event or a change of circumstances as required by section 66A of the Administration Act amounts to "engaging in conduct" for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?

Answer

No.

Question 2

If yes to Question 1, is section 66A of the Administration Act invalid, insofar as it has retrospective effect, because it

infringes the separation of judicial and legislative powers mandated by the Constitution?

Answer

Does not arise.

Question 3

Did the notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, or any of them, create a duty for the purposes of section 4.3(b) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to "engaging in conduct" for the purposes of section 135.2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?

Answer

The notices issued to the defendant, as identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the stated case, were, in each case, capable of creating a duty for the purposes of s 4.3(b) of the Code such that a failure to perform the act or acts required by the notice or notices amounts to "engaging in conduct" for the purposes of s 135.2(1)(a) of the Code.

Question 4

What order for costs, if any, should be made?

Answer