DOCSLIB.ORG

Download PDF Read More

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download PDF Read More This Issues Paper reflects the law as at 27 March 2009. © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN-978-0-9804153-5-3 Commission Reference: IP 35 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare Making a submission Any public contribution to an inquiry is called a submission and these are actively sought by the ALRC from a broad cross-section of the community, as well as those with a special interest in the particular inquiry. Submissions are usually written, but there is no set format and they need not be formal documents. Where possible, submissions in electronic format are preferred. It would be helpful if comments addressed specific proposals and questions or numbered paragraphs in this paper. Open inquiry policy In the interests of informed public debate, the ALRC is committed to open access to information. As submissions provide important evidence to each inquiry, it is common for the ALRC to draw upon the contents of submissions and quote from them or refer to them in publications. As part of ALRC policy, non-confidential submissions are made available to any person or organisation upon request after completion of an inquiry, and also may be published on the ALRC website. For the purposes of this policy, an inquiry is considered to have been completed when the final Report has been tabled in Parliament. However, the ALRC also accepts submissions made in confidence. Confidential submissions may include personal experiences where there is a wish to retain privacy, or other sensitive information (such as commercial-in-confidence material). Any request for access to a confidential submission is determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth), which has provisions designed to protect sensitive information given in confidence. In the absence of a clear indication that a submission is intended to be confidential, the ALRC will treat the submission as non-confidential. Submissions should be sent to: The Executive Director Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Email: [email protected] Submissions may also be made using the online form on the ALRC’s homepage: <www.alrc.gov.au> The closing date for submissions in response to IP 35 is 19 May 2009. Contents Contents Terms of Reference 5 List of Participants 7 List of Questions 9 1. Introduction to the Inquiry 17 Background 17 Scope of the Inquiry 18 Terminology 20 Law Reform Process 20 Organisation of this Issues Paper 22 Timeframe for the Inquiry 23 2. Role of Public Inquiries 25 Introduction 25 Historical background and trends 25 Characteristics of public inquiries 27 Functions of public inquiries 29 Policy and investigatory inquiries 30 Types of public inquiries in Australia 31 3. The Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) 37 Introduction 37 Establishment 37 Jurisdiction 39 Membership 41 Coercive powers 43 Methods of taking evidence 44 Privileges and immunities 45 Offences 45 Communication of information 46 Contempt 47 Concurrent Commonwealth and state Commissions 48 Custody and use of records of Royal Commissions 48 Drafting and structure of the Royal Commissions Act 49 Judicial review of inquiry decisions 49 2 Review of the Royal Commissions Act 4. Comparative Forms of Public Inquiry 53 Introduction 53 Existing types of federal public inquiries 53 Existing models of inquiry in Australian states and territories 58 Existing models of inquiry in overseas jurisdictions 64 5. Potential New Models of Commonwealth Public Inquiry 69 Introduction 69 Key considerations for developing a model of inquiry 69 Potential models for executive inquiry 71 Name of legislation establishing public inquiries 74 Government responses to public inquiries 74 6. Funding and Administration 81 Introduction` 81 Costs of public inquiries 82 Types and funding of costs and expenses 84 Inquiry administration and support 92 Minimising costs 94 7. Powers 99 Introduction 99 Other forms of inquiry: powers to obtain information 99 General powers to obtain information 101 Search and seizure powers 107 Need for special powers in cases of national security 111 Other issues 114 8. Witnesses 119 Introduction 119 Examination and cross-examination of witnesses 120 Exemptions from requirement to give evidence 123 Privileges and immunities 128 Protection of Commissioners, witnesses and legal practitioners 138 Public access to hearings and documents 139 Procedural fairness 142 9. Offences and Penalties 147 Introduction 147 Offences 148 Special context of Royal Commissions 148 Alternative sanctions 150 General principles of criminal liability 152 Contents 3 Offences of non-compliance 153 Unauthorised publications 156 Interference with evidence 158 Interference with witnesses 159 Offences relating to Commissioners or staff 161 Range of offences 161 Interference with a Royal Commission’s work or authority 162 Penalties 172 Proceedings 176 Costs 177 Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations 179 Terms of Reference REVIEW OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 AND RELATED ISSUES I, ROBERT McCLELLAND, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, having regard to the need to ensure that the executive government has available to it forms of inquiry on matters of public importance which are effective and efficient in the context of contemporary requirements, refer to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report, pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, the operation and provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (the Act) and the question whether an alternative form or forms of Commonwealth executive inquiry should be established by statute. 1. In carrying out its review, the Commission is to consider: (a) whether there is any need to develop an alternative form or forms of Commonwealth executive inquiry, with statutory foundations, to provide more flexibility, less formality and greater cost-effectiveness than a Royal Commission (particularly whether there would be any advantage in codifying special arrangements and powers that should apply to such alternative forms of inquiry); (b) whether there is any need to develop special arrangements and powers for inquiries involving matters of national security; (c) the appropriate balances between powers for persons undertaking inquiries and protections of the rights and liberties of persons interested in, or potentially affected by, inquiries; (d) the appropriateness of restrictions on the disclosure of information to, and use of information by, Royal Commissions and other inquiries, including restrictions contained in other legislation (but not including those arising from the operation of client legal privilege); and (e) suggestions for changes to the Act proposed or raised by Royal Commissions. 2. In carrying out its review, the Commission will identify and consult with key stakeholders, including relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies. 6 Review of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 3. The Commission will provide its final report to me by 30 October 2009. Dated: 14 January 2009 [signed] Robert McClelland Attorney-General List of Participants Australian Law Reform Commission Division The Division of the ALRC constituted under the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth) for the purposes of this Inquiry comprises the following: Professor David Weisbrot AM (President) Professor Les McCrimmon (Commissioner in charge) Professor Rosalind Croucher (Commissioner) Justice Berna Collier (part-time Commissioner) Justice Susan Kenny (part-time Commissioner) Senior Legal Officers Kate Connors Isabella Cosenza Legal Officers Joyce Chia (from March 2009) Althea Gibson (until February 2009) Erin Mackay Research Manager Jonathan Dobinson Librarian Carolyn Kearney Project Assistants Alayne Harland Legal Interns Christopher Beshara Marissa Chorn Erin Pynor Aileen Tse 8 Review of the Royal Commissions Act Advisory Committee Members Ms Sheila Butler, former Secretary to several recent Commonwealth public inquiries Emeritus Professor Enid Campbell AC OBE, former Dean, Monash University, Faculty of Law and Sir Isaac Isaacs Professor of Law The Hon Stephen Charles QC, former judge of the Victorian Court of Appeal The Hon Terence Cole AO RDF QC, former judge of the New South Wales Court of Appeal Mr Simon Daley, Australian Government Solicitor Ms Megan Davis, Director, Indigenous Law Centre, University of New South Wales
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation
    Justice and Efficiency in Mega-Litigation Anna Olijnyk Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Adelaide Law School The University of Adelaide October 2014 ii CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... ix Declaration .................................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... xi Note on Referencing Conventions ......................................................................................... xii Part I: The Problem .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3 I Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 II Significance and Limits of the Study ........................................................................... 6 III Methodology and Structure ......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Justice and Efficiency as Aims of Civil Procedure ....................................... 12 I Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Environment of International Business
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-67546-9 - Dynamics of International Business: Asia-Pacific Business Cases Edited by Prem Ramburuth, Christina Stringer and Manuel Serapio Excerpt More information Part I The Environment of International Business 1 AWB and the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal: Just a cost of doing business? Peter K Ross ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Walking the blurry line in China: Negotiating deals and staying out of jail Cheryl Rivers ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • AWB Scandal Timeline
    COPYRIGHT AND USE OF THIS THESIS This thesis must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction of material protected by copyright may be an infringement of copyright and copyright owners may be entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits an authorized officer of a university library or archives to provide a copy (by communication or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in the library or archives, to a person who satisfies the authorized officer that he or she requires the reproduction for the purposes of research or study. The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work a number of moral rights, specifically the right of attribution, the right against false attribution and the right of integrity. You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you: - fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if you quote sections from the work - attribute this thesis to another author - subject this thesis to derogatory treatment which may prejudice the author’s reputation For further information contact the University’s Copyright Service. sydney.edu.au/copyright MEDIATING JUSTICE INVESTIGATING THE FRAMING OF THE 2006 COLE INQUIRY Nonée Philomena Walsh Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of Arts (Research) within the Department of Media and Communications, School of Letters, Art, and Media, The University of Sydney 2015 © Nonée Walsh CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify that the thesis entitled, Mediating justice: Investigating the framing of the 2006 Cole Inquiry, submitted to fulfil the conditions of a Master of Arts (Research), is the result of my own original research, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award.
    [Show full text]
  • Ublic Policy Cover-8
    50993 Public Policy Text 25/7/07 1:47 PM Page 44 PUBLIC POLICY VOLUME 2 NUMBER 1 2007 44 – 57 Deregulating Australia's Wheat Trade: from the Australian Wheat Board to AWB Limited Geoff Cockfield University of Southern Queensland Linda Courtenay Botterill The Australian National University In 2006 in Australia there was an inquiry into allegations of kickbacks being paid to the former Iraqi regime by the grain trading company AWB Limited. The inquiry and its aftermath provided an opportunity for proponents of unregulated trade in wheat to press for the removal of the AWB’s control of export sales. This article is a review of the history of the development and dismantling of wheat marketing regulation in Australia, treated as a case study to illustrate two things: the shift in the prevailing values in Australian agricultural policy over the last 35 years; and the way in which legislative cycles, reviews, institutional change and particular events provide opportunities for policy advocates to press for change, in this case over at least 40 years. It is argued here that the dominant paradigm for trading agricultural commodities shifted from one based on agrarian collectivism and sectoral stabilisation to a less regulated system with the focus on the values of efficiency and competitiveness. In November 2005 the Australian Government established an inquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission headed by Terence Cole to investigate allegations that the corporation AWB Limited1 (formerly the statutory authority Australian Wheat Board) had made payments to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq through a Jordanian-based transport company in order to secure wheat sales, accusations originally raised by the UN Oil-for-Food inquiry headed by Paul Volker.
    [Show full text]
  • [1989] Reform 48 with Maori Needs
    [1989] Reform 48 with Maori needs. (NZH, 30 November * * * 1988) The most controversial recommendation, personalia according to the NZH (30 November 1988) is: Sir Ronald Wilson its advocacy of more culturally based rem­ Sir Ronald Wilson will retire from the edies. It pushes for a centre of cultural re­ High Court with effect from 13 February search and various tribal organisations 1989. Sir Ronald was appointed to the High which could increase acknowledgement of Court on 21 May 1979 as the first Justice of the relevance of Maori values and make the court to be appointed from Western Aus­ culturally based penalties for Maori of­ tralia. Prior to his appointment Sir Ronald fenders effective’. had been Solicitor-General of Western Aus­ essays on legislative drafting. The Adel­ tralia. It is understood that he will now de­ aide Law Review Association at the Univer­ vote his energies to his other roles as Pres­ sity of Adelaide Law School has published a ident of the Uniting Church in Australia and book in honour of Mr JQ Ewens, CMG, Chancellor of Murdoch University. CBE, QC, the former First Parliamentary The Hon Justice Michael McHugh Counsel of the Commonwealth. The book, entitled Essays on Legislative Drafting, is Justice McHugh will fill the vacancy on edited by the Chairman of the Law Reform the High Court created by the resignation of Commission of Victoria, Mr David St L Kel­ Justice Wilson. His appointment will take ef­ ly. John Ewens, now 81, has also been ad­ fect from 14 February 1989. Justice McHugh, visor to the Woodhouse Inquiry into Nation­ formerly of the New South Wales Court of al Rehabilitation and Compensation, drafts­ Appeal and Supreme Court, was elevated to man and advisor to the Norfolk Island Ad­ the Bench in 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Commission Into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
    FACT SHEET Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability On 5 April 2019, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, and Minister for Families and Social Services, the Hon Paul Fletcher MP, announced the establishment of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Why set up a Royal Commission? In Australia, royal commissions are the highest form of inquiry on matters of public importance. Recent inquiries and reports have shown that people with disability are more likely to experience violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation than people without disability. What we learn from the Royal Commission will help to inform Australian governments, institutions and the wider community on how to prevent, and better protect, people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation in the future. Who was consulted on the draft Terms of Reference? The Australian Government ran a public consultation on the draft Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability from 13 to 28 March 2019. The Government also consulted with disability peak bodies, advocates and with state and territory governments. The Government received over 3,700 responses to the online survey on the draft Terms of Reference. Thirty per cent of respondents were people with disability. The Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission define the scope of the Royal Commission’s inquiry. Ninety six per cent (96%) of respondents agreed the Terms of Reference should cover all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability, in all settings where they occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library BILLS DIGEST Information analysis and advice for the Parliament 7 June 2006, no. 149, 2005–06, ISSN 1328-8091 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Sue Harris Rimmer Law and Bills Digest Section Contents Purpose.............................................................. 2 Background........................................................... 2 Legal Professional Privilege ........................................... 2 The Cole Inquiry.................................................... 4 The Federal Court finding ............................................. 5 ALP policy position ................................................. 6 Main provisions........................................................ 7 Schedule 1 – Amendment of Royal Commissions Act 1902 ....................7 Concluding Comments.................................................. 10 Endnotes............................................................ 11 www.aph.gov.au/librarwww.aph.gov.au/library www.aph.gov.au/library 2 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 2006 Date introduced: 25 May 2006 House: House of Representatives Portfolio: Prime Minister Commencement: Sections 1 to 3 commence on the day of Royal Assent. Schedule 1 commences the day after Royal Assent. Purpose This Bill is to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (the Act) to clarify the operation of the Act in respect of claims of legal professional privilege (LPP). Amendments were requested by
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper 17
    SEA POWER CENTRE AUSTRALIA The New South Wales Reserve Naval Legal Panel – 40 Years of Service Working Paper No. 17 © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the Department of Defence Announcement statement-may be announced to the public. Secondary release-may be released to the public. All Defence information, whether classified or not, is protected from unauthorised disclosure under the Crimes Act 1914. Defence Information may only be released in accordance with the Defence Protective Security Manual (SECMAN 4) and/or Defence Instruction (General) OPS 13-4-Release of Classified Defence Information to Other Countries, as appropriate. Requests and inquiries should be addressed to the Director, Sea Power Centre - Australia, CANBERRA, ACT, 2600. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Entry Horobin, Judith. The New South Wales Reserve Naval Legal Panel: 40 Years of Service ISBN 0 642 29609 X 1. Australia. New South Wales Reserve Naval Legal Panel. 2. Naval Law - New South Wales - History. I. Renwick, James, 1963- . II. Australia. Royal Australian Navy. Sea Power Centre. III. Title. (Series: Working paper (Australia. Royal Australian Navy. Sea Power Centre ); no.17). 343.94019 i Disclaimer The views expressed are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the Department of Defence. The Commonwealth of Australia will not be legally responsible in contract, tort or otherwise for any statement made in this publication. Sea Power Centre - Australia The Sea Power Centre - Australia (SPC-A - formerly the Maritime Studies Program) was established to undertake activities which would promote the study, discussion and awareness of maritime issues and strategy within the RAN and the defence and civil communities at large.
    [Show full text]
  • The Saga of Scott Morrison and Temporary Protection Visas’ (2021) 44(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal (Advance)
    2021 Advance Access: A Masterclass in Evading the Rule of Law 1 Advance Copy – Citation Joyce Chia and Savitri Taylor, ‘A Masterclass in Evading the Rule of Law: The Saga of Scott Morrison and Temporary Protection Visas’ (2021) 44(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal (Advance). A MASTERCLASS IN EVADING THE RULE OF LAW: THE SAGA OF SCOTT MORRISON AND TEMPORARY PROTECTION VISAS JOYCE CHIA* AND SAVITRI TAYLOR** For over a year, the then Minister for Immigration successfully avoided granting permanent protection to refugees who came by boat. His newly elected government had promised to re-introduce a temporary protection regime, but came to power without the numbers to pass necessary legislation. In order to achieve his policy objective, the Minister chose to engage in a variety of legally dubious tactics to forestall and delay granting permanent protection, as required by the law. In doing so, the Minister navigated skilfully through the holes in Australia’s institutional frameworks designed to protect the rule of law and Australia’s constitutional arrangements. The saga of Scott Morrison and temporary protection visas is therefore a telling story about the fragility of the rule of law in Australia and demonstrates how a determined executive can upend the constitutional order. I INTRODUCTION In October 2013, the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, asked his Department for advice on a problem. The new Coalition Government had come to power promising that refugees who came by boat would now only be entitled to temporary protection.1 There was, however, something in * Dr Joyce Chia, BA/LLB (Melb), PhD (UCL), was formerly Director of Policy at the Refugee Council of Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • British Tribunals of Inquiry: Legislative and Judicial Control of the Inquisitorial Process— Relevance to Australian Royal Commissions
    INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ADVICE FOR THE PARLIAMENT INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES Research Paper No. 5 2002–03 British Tribunals of Inquiry: Legislative and Judicial Control of the Inquisitorial Process— Relevance to Australian Royal Commissions DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY ISSN 1328-7478 Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 2003 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the public. Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003 I NFORMATION AND R ESEARCH S ERVICES Research Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • University of New South Wales Law School 40 Anniversary
    University of New South Wales Law School 40 th Anniversary Chief Justice Robert French AC 17 September 2011, Sydney Chancellor, Dean, Attorney-General, Sir Gerard Brennan, Ladies and Gentlemen, there seems to be a fascination with '40' that requires human beings to celebrate or mourn anniversaries bearing that number. This may have something to do with its biblical significance and the seepage of that significance into popular culture. According to the usual unreliable sources, '40' represents a period of waiting, preparation, testing or punishment. So the Old Testament recounts 40 days of life 1 2 extinguishing global inundation, 40 years of wandering in the desert and the 3 40 days it took to embalm Jacob. On a more positive note the Gospel of Barnabas predicted that the end of the world would be followed by 40 years of darkness after which God would give life to his Messenger, his angels and the elect. Looking up the meaning of '40' on the web, I came across a numerological calculator called the Gematria which will add up the values of the letters of a name yielding a number based on those letters which may or may not have symbolic significance. Having found no symbolic significance attaching to any variant of my own name, I keyed in 'Hal', the name of the Foundation Dean of the Law School. This yielded a positive result. According to the Gematria, 'Hal' equates to the number 39, which is said to be symbolic of 'the organisation and the solidarity of the ______________________ 1 Genesis 7, 4. 2 Nb 32, 13.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Special Commissions of Inquiry/Crime Commissions on Criminal Trials - Speech
    The impact of special commissions of inquiry/crime commissions on criminal trials - speech Mark Weinberg1 Supreme Court of New South Wales Annual Conference Friday 1 August 2014 Background and introduction 1 Investigating crime and assembling evidence for a prosecution is a task normally left to the police. They engage in surveillance, question witnesses, conduct forensic examinations and interrogate suspects. However, police powers are limited. Suspects are entitled to refuse to answer their questions. They can frustrate, and even thwart, searches conducted under warrant, for example, by invoking legal professional privilege,2 a claim which may take months, if not years, to work its way through the courts. 2 Criminal activity has become ever more sophisticated. Police using only normal investigative methods have often found themselves unable to counter, in particular, organised crime. As a result, alternative mechanisms have increasingly been utilised to enable adequate investigation to be carried out into such crime. 3 Some of these mechanisms include Royal Commissions or Commissions of Inquiry.3 For practical purposes, these terms may be viewed as indistinguishable. 1 Judge, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria. The opinions expressed are my own. They are not to be taken as reflecting the views of any other member of the Supreme Court of Victoria. I wish to express my gratitude to my Associate, Emily Brott, for her assistance in the preparation of this paper. 2 Described as ‘client legal privilege’ in the Uniform Evidence Acts. This privilege is not available to corporations: Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477.
    [Show full text]