Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10

ORDER Order that:

(1) the appeal be allowed;

(2) the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland be set aside and in lieu thereof:

(a) declare that, in reporting adversely to the appellants in its Report on Gaming Machine Concerns and Regulations, the respondent failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness; and

(b) discharge the order nisi for writs of certiorari and mandamus;

(3) the respondent pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court and of the appeal to this Court.

Cur. adv vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1992, April 9 Mason C.J., Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

The first appellant, Leonard Hastings Ainsworth, is the managing director of the second appellant, Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd Ainsworth Nominees Pty Ltd manufactures and supplies gaming or poker machines.

The respondent, the Criminal Justice Commission ("the Commission"), is a corporation constituted under s. 2.1(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 Q ("the Act") with the functions and responsibilities set out in ss. 2.14 and 2.15. Broadly speaking, it is charged with a duty to monitor, review, co-ordinate and initiate reform of the administration of criminal justice in Queensland (s. 2.14(1)(a)) and, through its organizational units, with investigating the incidence of official misconduct (s. 2.20(2)(a)), researching the problems of the administration of criminal justice (s. 2.45(1)(a)), co-ordinating the activities of other agencies concerned with the administration of criminal justice (s. 2.45(1)(b)), gathering intelligence concerning criminal activities and persons (s. 2.47) and protecting witnesses: s. 2.51.