Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission v Walker [2006] NSWSC 645

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission v Walker [2006] NSWSC 645 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 20 June 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 20 June 2006

JURISDICTION : Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF : McDougall J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 06/20/2006

DECISION : See para [33] of judgment

CATCHWORDS : CONTEMPT - alleged contempt of Police Integrity Commission - where Commissioner "presents ... certificate to the Supreme Court" - whether Commissioner or Registrar is proper plaintiff

LEGISLATION CITED : Police Integrity Commission Act 1996

PARTIES : Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission (Plaintiff) Christopher John Walker (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30108/04

COUNSEL : R D Cogswell SC/ P F Singleton / A Mitchelmore (Plaintiff) A J McQuillen (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Ms M M O'Brien, Commission Solicitor (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

McDOUGALL J

Tuesday 20 June 2006 Ex tempore (revised 21 June 2006)

30108/04 COMMISSIONER FOR THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION v CHRISTOPHER JOHN WALKER

JUDGMENT – (on application to stay, strike out or dismiss)

1 By summons filed on 10 December 2004, the plaintiff (the Commissioner) seeks relief in connection with an alleged contempt of the Police Integrity Commission (the Commissioner) said to have been committed by the defendant (Mr Walker). 2 The summons contains a statement of charge whereby it is alleged that Mr Walker "is guilty of a contempt of the Commission in that on 6 December 2004 in relation to a series of questions concerning certain events in which he was alleged to have been a participant [Mr Walker], by his answers, falsely asserted an inability to recollect the events such that he refused or otherwise failed to answer the relevant questions and did thereby conduct himself in a manner which interfered or tended to interfere, with the lawful investigations of the Commission". 3 Particulars are given of that statement of charge, by reference to a certificate provided by the Commissioner pursuant to s 119 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (the PIC Act). 4 When the proceedings came on for hearing this morning, Mr McQuillen of counsel, who appears in substance pro bono for Mr Walker, sought and obtained leave to file in Court a notice of motion seeking an order that the summons be stayed, struck out or dismissed either pursuant to UCPR rules 13.4 and 14.28, or pursuant to SCR Part 13 r 5 and Part 15 r 26. I heard argument on that question. 5 Mr McQuillen submitted that there were two reasons why his client was entitled to the substantive relief sought by the notice of motion. (I put aside the apparent irrelevance of the rules dealing with the striking out or dismissal of pleaded cases, since this proceeding was commenced by summons, not by a pleading. What I have to say concerns the substance, not the technicality, of the relief sought.) 6 The first ground advanced by Mr McQuillen in support of the notice of motion was that the proceedings were improperly constituted. To understand this argument, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the PIC Act dealing with the Commission, the Commissioner and contempt of the Commission. 7 The Commission is constituted by s 6 of the Act, and, by ss (2), has the functions conferred or imposed on it by or under that or any other Act. 8 The role of Commissioner is established by s 7 of the Act. By subsection (2) the Commissioner has the functions conferred or imposed on the Commissioner by or under the Act or any other Act. 9 The objects of the Act are set out in s 3 of the Act as follows: "3 Principal objects of Act The principal objects of this Act are: