The Court dismissed a pre-trial application to quash a charge of refusing to take an oath under s 36(3) of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004, holding that the coercive powers order and custody order were not invalid. On the Charter grounds, the Court assumed without deciding that the Supreme Court acts in an administrative capacity when making a coercive powers order, but held that ss 24(1) and 25(2)(k) of the Charter were not engaged because the accused was not subject to pending criminal charges at the time the orders were made, and that Warren CJ's decision in Re Application expressly rejected the proposition that derivative use immunity conditions must be imposed at the coercive powers order stage. The Court held that a collateral challenge under s 199(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 satisfies the precondition in s 39 of the Charter for seeking Charter-based relief, but left open the broader question of whether all forms of collateral challenge in criminal proceedings would do so.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.