ACC v Stoddart Case Note
1
2
CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1
I INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case, analyze both the High Court majority and dissenting judgments, and comment on the significance of the decision held in the case.
II THE CASE
A Facts
Louise Stoddart was summoned as a witness to front the Australian Crime Commission
(ACC) on 03 April 2009 following S28 (1) of the ACC Act 2002 (Cth) to provide evidence of federally relevant criminal activity2 involving her husband of 20 years, Ewan Stoddart. A previously self-employed accountant carrying on a practice at several Queensland locations,
Mr Stoddart was being investigated for tax fraud.
Having provided part-time bookkeeping services for her husband’s practice in the last two years prior to its closure in 2006, Stoddart was examined if she was aware of any invoices prepared at her husband’s office for services provided by other entities. Stoddart’s counsel objected to this line of questioning calling on common law spousal privilege and refused to answer the question at the risk of incriminating her husband. The ACC Examiner determined this injunction to be ascertained elsewhere and adjourned the examination.
B Federal Court Proceedings
On 14 May 2009, Stoddart sought an injunction in the Federal Court to restrain the ACC examiner from asking her questions about her husband and a declaration that the spousal privilege at common law had not been abrogated by the ACC Act. Reeves J dismissed this application on 01 October 2009 saying that this privilege exists at common law but was abrogated by the ACT.3 Stoddart appealed to
2
CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1
I INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case, analyze both the High Court majority and dissenting judgments, and comment on the significance of the decision held in the case.
II THE CASE
A Facts
Louise Stoddart was summoned as a witness to front the Australian Crime Commission
(ACC) on 03 April 2009 following S28 (1) of the ACC Act 2002 (Cth) to provide evidence of federally relevant criminal activity2 involving her husband of 20 years, Ewan Stoddart. A previously self-employed accountant carrying on a practice at several Queensland locations,
Mr Stoddart was being investigated for tax fraud.
Having provided part-time bookkeeping services for her husband’s practice in the last two years prior to its closure in 2006, Stoddart was examined if she was aware of any invoices prepared at her husband’s office for services provided by other entities. Stoddart’s counsel objected to this line of questioning calling on common law spousal privilege and refused to answer the question at the risk of incriminating her husband. The ACC Examiner determined this injunction to be ascertained elsewhere and adjourned the examination.
B Federal Court Proceedings
On 14 May 2009, Stoddart sought an injunction in the Federal Court to restrain the ACC examiner from asking her questions about her husband and a declaration that the spousal privilege at common law had not been abrogated by the ACC Act. Reeves J dismissed this application on 01 October 2009 saying that this privilege exists at common law but was abrogated by the ACT.3 Stoddart appealed to
Bibliography: Books Cross and Tapper, Cross on Evidence, 8th Aust ed (2010) Dalton, Country Justice, (1619) 2. Case Law Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) 271 ALR 53 Callanan v B [2005] 1 Qd R 348 Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477, [1993] Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] AC 474, [1978] 2 WLR 695, [1978] 2 All ER 136, (1978) 67 Cr App R 88 In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract [1978] AC 547, 637 R v Inhabitants of All Saints Worcester (1817) 105 ER 1215, (1817) 6 M & S 194 Riddle v The King (1911) 18 ALR 103 Shenton v Tyler [1939] Ch 620 Stoddart v Boulton (2009) 260 ALR 268 Stoddart v Boulton (2010) 185 FCR 409