The mere fact of a compulsory examination by the NSW Crime Commission does not by itself warrant a stay of criminal proceedings; the court must examine the consequences of the examination. Appellate review of a refusal to grant a stay applies House v The King principles: errors of primary fact are reviewable, but inferences drawn from correct facts are only reviewable if the decision was unreasonable or plainly unjust. There is no prohibition on the Commission using one witness's examination evidence in examining another witness, and s 18B of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 protects only against direct use of self-incriminating evidence, not derivative use by the Commission itself. The construction and effect of s 45C of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.