X7 v Australian Crime Commission

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJX7  PLAINTIFFANDAUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION & ANOR  DEFENDANTSX7 v Australian Crime Commission[2013] HCA 2926 June 2013S100/2012ORDERThe questions asked in the Case Stated dated 23 August 2012 be answered as follows:1.Does Div 2 of Pt II of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ("the ACC Act") empower an examiner appointed under s 46B(1) of the ACC Act to conduct an examination of a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence where that examination concerns the subject matter of the offence so charged?Answer:The ACC Act does not authorise an examiner appointed under s 46B(1) of the ACC Act to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of the charged offence.2.If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes", is Div 2 of Pt II of the ACC Act invalid to that extent as contrary to Ch III of the Constitution?Answer:This question does not arise.RepresentationG D Wendler with A S G Cassels for the plaintiff (instructed John D Weller & Associates)S P Donaghue SC with M J O'Meara for the defendants (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)IntervenersM G Sexton SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales with C L Lenehan for the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, intervening (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))W Sofronoff QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland with G J D del Villar for the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland, intervening (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))M G...