McLeod-Dryden v Supreme Court of Victoria

(2017) 270 A Crim R 352; [2017] VSCA 60

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Organised crime
3. › Coercive powers orders
4. › Organised crime offence
5. › Systemic and continuing criminal activity
6. › Whether criminal activity must be extant at time of application for coercive powers order
7. › Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic), ss 3AA(2)(b), 5, 8
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Principle of legality
3. › Presumption against curtailment of common law rights
4. › Whether constructional choices open
5. › Application to coercive investigative powers
6. › Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic), s 3AA(2)(b)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Judge exercising administrative function
4. › Whether decision to grant or refuse coercive powers order is administrative or judicial
5. › Availability of judicial review of Supreme Court judge's administrative decision
6. › Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic), ss 5, 8
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judicial review
3. › Proper defendant
4. › Whether Supreme Court properly named as defendant in judicial review of decision by Supreme Court judge
5. › Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic), r 56.01

Quick Take

An application for a coercive powers order under s 5 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic) may be made even though the systemic and continuing criminal activity of which the organised crime offence forms part has ceased by the time of the application. 'Systemic and continuing' connotes coordinated criminal activity which is ongoing or persistent, as opposed to activity which is merely opportunistic, impulsive, spontaneous, or of short duration or limited incidence. A judge deciding whether to grant or refuse a CPO exercises an administrative function, and such decisions are amenable to judicial review in the Supreme Court.