Customs and excise – Customs control – Dutiable goods – Possession, custody or control of dutiable goods – Where company held warehouse licence under Customs Act 1901 (Cth) – Where dutiable goods stolen from company's warehouse before goods entered for home consumption – Where respondent employed by company as general manager and warehouse manager – Where s 35A(1) of Customs Act relevantly provided that a person who "has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control" of dutiable goods subject to customs control and who fails to keep goods safely shall, on demand by Collector, pay amount equal to customs duty which would have been payable if goods had been entered for home consumption on day of demand – Where respondent served with demand by Collector under s 35A(1) – Where respondent applied to Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of Collector's demand – Where Tribunal found respondent directed what was to happen to goods on day-to-day basis – Whether respondent was person who "has, or has been entrusted with, the possession, custody or control" of dutiable goods subject to customs control.

Words and phrases – "authority to deal with", "Collector", "customs control", "dutiable goods", "employee", "fails to keep the goods safely", "has, or has been entrusted with", "home consumption", "management or control", "operational control", "owner", "possession, custody or control", "power or authority", "warehouse licence".

Customs Act 1901 (Cth) – ss 30, 35A, 36, 37, Pt V.

Criminal practice – Abuse of process – Where Australian Crime Commission ("ACC") received information concerning allegations that company involved in criminal activity – Where allegations referred to Australian Federal Police ("AFP") – Where appellants declined to participate in cautioned record of interview with AFP – Where appellants compulsorily examined by ACC – Where examiner aware that appellants were suspects who may be charged with an offence – Where examiner permitted AFP officers to watch examinations from nearby room without disclosing their presence to appellants – Where examiner permitted dissemination of examination material to AFP and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions – Where appellants subsequently charged with Commonwealth and Victorian offences – Where appellants sought permanent stay of prosecutions for abuse of process – Where primary judge permanently stayed prosecutions – Where Court of Appeal of Supreme Court of Victoria allowed appeals from orders of primary judge – Whether ACC conducted special investigation under Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – Whether examinations unlawful – Whether prosecution derived forensic advantage from examinations – Whether appellants suffered forensic disadvantage as result of examinations – Whether examinations unlawful infringement upon appellants' right to silence – Whether examiner's conduct reckless – Whether permanent stay necessary to prevent administration of justice falling into disrepute.

Words and phrases – "abuse of process", "administration of justice", "coercive powers", "compulsive powers", "compulsory examination", "derivative use", "direct use", "dissemination of examination product", "fair trial", "forensic advantage", "forensic choice", "forensic disadvantage", "illegally obtained evidence", "improper purpose", "integrity of the court", "locked in", "may be charged", "non-publication directions", "permanent stay", "prejudice", "prosecution brief", "prosecutorial team", "reckless", "right to silence", "special investigation", "suspect", "trial directions", "unlawfully obtained evidence".

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) – ss 7C, 46A, Pt II Div 2.

Evidence – Criminal trial – Sexual offences – Tendency evidence – Admissibility – Where appellant acolyte and complainant altar boy – Where appellant alleged to have followed complainant into church's public bathroom and committed offences – Where evidence that appellant, while working as an assistant housemaster, sexually offended against homesick boarding students who sought out appellant in private bedroom led as tendency evidence – Where tendency expressed as appellant having sexual interest in young teenage boys under his supervision and to act on that interest – Where tendency evidence of acts occurring ten years before offences charged – Where no evidence other than complainant's evidence that appellant had offended again in ten year period – Where tendency evidence unchallenged in cross-examination – Whether tendency evidence possessed significant probative value.

Words and phrases – "sexual interest", "significant probative value", "tendency evidence", "tendency expressed at a high level of generality", "tendency to act in a particular way", "tendency to have a particular state of mind".

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – ss 97, 101.

High Court – Appellate jurisdiction – Leave to appeal – Circumstances when leave necessary – Distinction between interlocutory and final judgment – Where Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 34(2) requires leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment of High Court exercising original jurisdiction – Where single Justice dismissed application for order to show cause – Where appellant filed notice of appeal without seeking leave to appeal – Whether judgment appealed from interlocutory or final – Whether appeal incompetent.

Courts – Jurisdiction – Different dimensions of jurisdiction – Where respondent entered unconditional appearance to the appeal – Whether submission to personal dimension of jurisdiction precludes respondent from impugning competency of appeal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Words and phrases – "application for an order nisi", "application for an order to show cause", "finally determines", "incompetent", "interlocutory judgment", "leave to appeal", "personal dimension of jurisdiction", "subject matter dimension of jurisdiction".

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – s 34(2).

High Court Rules 1952 (Cth) – O 55 r 1(2).

High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) – r 25. 03. 3(a).