R v Elliot [1996] HCA 21

High Court of Australia Brennan CJ Gummow and Kirby JJ R v Elliot [1996] HCA 21

ORDER

1. Application for special leave dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs in this Court.

21 June 1996 Brennan CJ

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a ruling by Vincent J in the Supreme Court of Victoria before the impanelling of the jury in a criminal trial. This procedure is provided for by s 391A of the Crimes Act 1958 Vict which reads:

Where an accused person is arraigned on indictment or presentment before the Supreme Court or the County Court the Court before which the arraignment takes place, if the Court thinks fit, may before the impanelling of a jury for the trial hear and determine any question with respect to the trial of the accused person which the Court considers necessary to ensure that the trial will be conducted fairly and expeditiously and the hearing and determination of any such question shall be conducted and have the same effect and consequences in all respects as such a hearing and determination would have had before the enactment of this section if the hearing and determination had occurred after the jury had been impanelled.

The questions of law which the applicant seeks to raise are of considerable importance. They fall into two categories. The first relates to the powers of the National Crime Authority under ss 28 and 25 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 Cth. Section 28 authorises the Authority to issue a summons to a witness to attend before the Authority at a hearing to give evidence and to produce documents. Section 25 authorises the holding of hearings for the purposes of a special investigation. Section 30 compels a witness summoned to a hearing to be sworn, to answer questions and to produce documents. The learned trial judge held that the National Crime Authority had exceeded its powers in conducting so much of the hearings as obtained the evidence which the prosecution now seeks to tender against the respective respondents. That conclusion was reached in part by reference to terms of a reference by the Minister pursuant to s 13(1) of the National Crime Authority Act. In so far as the conclusion depends on issues particular to the case, no point warranting a grant of special leave emerges.