Police Integrity Commission & v Shaw

[2006] NSWCA 165

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory bodies
3. › Police Integrity Commission
4. › Scope of investigatory and reporting powers
5. › Whether Commission may report on misconduct of non-police persons
6. › Whether 'other misconduct' in s 16(1) requires close nexus with police misconduct
7. › Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (NSW), ss 5, 13, 16, 22, 23, 96, 97, 130
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Prohibition and declaratory relief
4. › Restraining statutory tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction
5. › Whether relief available before final decision made
6. › Whether jurisdictional error established
1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory bodies
3. › Police Integrity Commission
4. › Reports to Parliament
5. › Affected persons
6. › Whether Commission required to include statement under s 97(2) in respect of non-police affected person
7. › Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (NSW), s 97
1. Administrative Law
2. › Statutory bodies
3. › Police Integrity Commission
4. › Public officials
5. › Whether s 130 limits Commission's powers where public official involved in private conduct
6. › Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (NSW), s 130

Quick Take

The Police Integrity Commission's power to form opinions and report to Parliament on 'other misconduct' under s 16(1) of the PIC Act extends to misconduct of non-police persons where their conduct is relevant to an investigation of police misconduct; the connection with police misconduct arises from the investigation itself and does not require 'closeness' or 'intimacy'. The existence or otherwise of police misconduct is not a jurisdictional fact upon which the Commission's powers depend. Where a person is an 'affected person' under s 97(3), the Commission is obliged to include the s 97(2) statement in its report regardless of whether police misconduct is ultimately found.