Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7: Declaration of Criminal Organisation

Today the High Court unanimously upheld the validity of provisions of the Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (QLD) which relate to "criminal intelligence" and are relied upon to have an organisation declared a "criminal organisation" in the case of Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7.

The Facts

On 1 June 2012, the Assistant Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service filed an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland seeking a declaration that the Finks Motor Cycle Club, Gold Coast Chapter, and Pompano Pty Ltd, said to be a part of that Chapter, constituted a criminal organisation under s 10 of the Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (QLD).

The Supreme Court Case

In support of the application, the Supreme Court needed to rely on criminal intelligence relating to actual or suspected criminal activity, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to "prejudice a criminal investigation", "enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information relevant to law enforcement", or "endanger a person's life or physical safety".

This information was heard in a closed hearing and therefore kept secret from the respondents.

The High Court Appeal

In the High Court, the respondents contended that those provisions of the Act (among others) were invalid because they denied procedural fairness to a respondent to an application to have an organisation declared a criminal organisation.  The parties agreed to submit a special case to the High Court asking whether such provisions were invalid for impairing the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, thereby infringing Ch III of the Constitution.

The High Court upheld the validity of the provisions.  The Court held that while the provisions may depart from the usual incidents of procedure and judicial process, the Supreme Court nonetheless retains its capacity to act fairly and impartially.  The Court held that the provisions do not impair the essential characteristics of the Supreme Court, or its continued institutional integrity.

Looking for Crimes Point-in Time Legislation? Trial our pro-active and current service for free.