Annual Report - COMPLETE - Australian Crime Commission

The principal target of Operation Soho was found guilty in Queensland in February
2004 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for offences of burglary whilst armed,
torture, assault occasioning bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm and
stealing. These offences were not investigated during Operation Soho but were
revealed by various witnesses who were summonsed to ACC examinations at the
conclusion of the operation. Following extensive legal arguments, the prosecution
was permitted to admit into evidence the transcripts and audio recordings of the
ACC examinations in which those witnesses provided direct evidence of the person’s
involvement in the offences.
Significantly, this is the first time that ACC transcripts have been used in such a
context and in this manner. Had it not been for the ACC examinations, a conviction
would not have been possible.
Two people were sentenced to life imprisonment for their role in the importation of
150 kgs of ecstasy tablets into Australia in October 2001. This was investigated by
the NCA under Operation Affcot. In his sentencing remarks, Justice Sully said “... the
MDMA importation was from first to last an enterprise breath-taking in its contempt
for the law; in its disregard for the public order and welfare of this country and its
citizens; and in its cynical amorality. Anybody instrumental in the planning and
execution of so wicked an undertaking is criminally culpable in high degree”. The
life sentences represent a significant achievement and should serve as a deterrent
to those involved in drug trafficking.
Other Court Matters
Two matters were determined under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review)
Act 1977 during 2003–04. Two people sought orders of review in relation to the
exercise of the ACC coercive powers.
In the first matter a person summonsed to appear at an ACC examination asserted
that because he is facing criminal and confiscation proceedings, further questioning
of him would impinge upon his common law rights and the “privilege against self
incrimination”, and would prejudice his position in confiscation proceedings before the
WA Supreme Court. The ACC had placed on the record undertakings that it would
not question the witness on these matters.
Carr J. of the Federal Court declined to grant the relief sought by the applicant.
However the Court recognised that circumstances might arise where questions were
put to the applicant that might constitute a real, or substantial, risk of interference with
the course of justice. The court referred the Examiner’s ruling that the examination
should proceed, back to the ACC Examiner for consideration.
72 I ACC ANNUAL REPORT 2003–04