Contempt by Concurrent Inquiry

McClymont Kate , ‘Woes of getting a decent hitman’, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 1 August 2012 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/woes-of-getting-a-decent-hitman-20120731-23d5b.html.

Hammond v The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188; State of Victoria v Builders Labourers Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25; contrast Huston v Costigan (No 2) (1982) 5 ALD 90.

Australian Crime Commission v OK (2010) 268 ALR 281; contrast New South Wales Crime Commission v Lee [2011] NSWSC 80 (Under appeal at the time of writing).

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v De Vonk (1995) 133 ALR 303 (Notice under s 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936); Watson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) 169 ALR 213 (where a witness in an accused's criminal proceedings was sought to be examined under s 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936); contrast Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486 (Director's examination under corporations legislation).

Cassaniti v Tax Agents' Board of New South Wales [2009] FCA 619.

See, eg, section 37 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.

Although in the context of a compulsory examination, see for example s 25A(9) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).

Jago v The District Court (1989) 168 CLR 23 at 47.

State of Victoria v Builders Labourers Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25 per Gibbs CJ at 56.

Hammond v The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188 at 198.

Ibid at 206.

Huston v Costigan (No 1) (1982) 5 ALD 90 at 94 per Toohey J.

Ibid.

Huston v Costigan (No 2) (1982) 5 ALD 90 at 95 per Toohey J.

Although in the context of a compulsory examination, see for example s 25A(9) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth).

See for example ss 19, 31(9) and s 112 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.