Previous: Section 4: Systems and services
This section describes an independent review that may lead to changes in the ACIC’s legislative framework, and legal actions involving the ACIC in 2024–25.
Legislative changes
In 2023, the Australian Government commissioned the ‘first principles’ Independent Review of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and associated Commonwealth law enforcement arrangements. Stephen Merchant PSM and Greg Wilson were appointed to undertake the review.
The review assessed the operations and effectiveness of the ACIC as Australia’s national criminal intelligence agency within the context of Commonwealth law enforcement and intelligence more broadly.
On 14 November 2024, the Attorney-General published the unclassified report of the review and the government’s response. The government has considered the review’s 29 recommendations and agreed or agreed in principle with 27 of the recommendations.
The recommendations set out the blueprint for comprehensive reform to provide the strongest foundation for the ACIC’s critical national criminal intelligence role. The recommendations directly drive legislative reform, including repealing and replacing the ACC Act, to clarify the ACIC’s role, strengthen its powers, and modernise oversight and information sharing.
These reforms will uplift the ACIC’s legal framework and allow the agency to undertake its functions outlined in the review as Australia’s national criminal intelligence agency and provider of critical policing information and criminal intelligence systems. The reforms will support the ACIC to analyse, evaluate and communicate intelligence relating to serious and organised crime to Commonwealth and state and territory law enforcement partners. Maximising the use and sharing of this intelligence information enables police partners to build operational strategies and coordinate disruption activities.
Charges and convictions
In 2024–25, ACIC intelligence contributed to operational activities that led to law enforcement partners charging 36 people with criminal offences, laying a total of 143 charges.
As a result of law enforcement partners’ prosecutions arising from ACIC intelligence, 2 convictions were secured in 2024–25, for offences related to illicit drugs and money laundering. The convictions related to charges laid in a previous financial year. The convicted persons appeared before a court for sentencing in 2024–25, resulting in a custodial sentence of 10 or more years for one person, and a custodial sentence of less than 3 years with community work on release for the other.
Offences against the ACC Act can be dealt with by way of prosecution, or through contempt proceedings. The appropriate approach is determined by the unique context of each matter.
In 2024–25, one prosecution was commenced in relation to offences against the ACC Act. The matter was concluded with the court imposing a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with the defendant to be released after 9 months on entering into a recognisance in the amount of $5,000 and undertaking to be of good behaviour for 18 months.
Proceeds of crime actions
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides for the proceeds of crime to be controlled, confiscated and potentially forfeited to the Commonwealth to discourage criminal activity and prevent reinvestment in further criminal activity. In addition, under equivalent state or territory legislation, state and territory partners may control, confiscate and recover proceeds of crime, based on ACIC intelligence.
In conjunction with its partners, the ACIC works to undermine the profitability of criminal enterprises. Table 5.1 summarises the outcomes of law enforcement partners’ proceeds of crime activities that resulted from ACIC intelligence.
|
Type |
Amount ($m) |
|---|---|
|
Restraineda |
21.0 |
|
Confiscatedb |
0.1 |
|
Recoveredc |
0.0 |
a Assets are frozen or restrained due to a suspicion of criminal activity.
b Criminal involvement is confirmed and the court orders a defendant to pay money to the government or forfeit assets. This can be in the form of a forfeiture order, a pecuniary penalty order or a conviction-based forfeiture.
c Money obtained from the transfer of money or the sale of assets is paid to the government.
Judicial reviews
The ACIC is subject to legal challenge as a normal part of its operations. This usually occurs in the context of applications in the Federal Court of Australia (Federal Court) for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) or section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Judiciary Act), or as part of the criminal justice process, such as in contested subpoenas or applications for a stay of criminal proceedings.
In 2024–25, 4 judicial review applications involving the ACIC were made to the Federal Court and were determined or otherwise disposed of, as reported below.
VII v Purcell [2025] FCA 202
On 21 February 2024, VII (a court-ordered pseudonym) filed an application in the Federal Court for relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the examiner to issue a summons pursuant to section 28 of the ACC Act, as well as the validity of the relevant special ACIC operation. The applicant also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions in the ACC Act which empower the ACIC Board to authorise a special ACIC operation or special ACIC investigation.
The matter was heard on 7 June and 18 June 2024. On 14 March 2025, the court dismissed the application on all grounds and ordered the applicant to pay the ACIC’s costs. On 8 April 2025, the applicant filed an appeal to the Full Federal Court against the decision. On 7 October 2025, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the ACIC’s costs.
Elfar v The Commonwealth and Ors [2024] FCA 245
On 4 April 2023, the applicant filed an application in the Federal Court seeking an extension of time to apply for a review under the ADJR Act and/or relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act. The applicant sought to challenge the basis of his compulsory examination in 2010, including his removal from a corrective services facility for the purpose of the examination.
On 26 March 2025, the court dismissed the application on all grounds and ordered the applicant to pay the ACIC’s costs.
DMT24 v Durr and Anor
On 8 May 2024, DMT24 (a court-ordered pseudonym) filed an application in the Federal Court for relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act. The applicant sought to challenge (including seeking an injunctive relief) the decision of the examiner to issue a notice and summons pursuant to sections 21A and 28 of the ACC Act, as well as the validity of the relevant special ACIC operation.
On 21 June 2024, the applicant sought to discontinue the proceedings on the basis that the parties bear their own costs. A notice of discontinuance was filed by the applicant on 20 August 2024.
HYF24 v Commonwealth of Australia
On 4 October 2024, HYF24 (a court-ordered pseudonym) filed an application in the Federal Court for relief under section 16(1)(a) of the ADJR Act and section 39B of the Judiciary Act. The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the examiner to issue a notice and summons pursuant to sections 21A and 28 of the ACC Act.
On 22 October 2024, the examiner withdrew the summons requiring HYF24 to appear before an ACIC examiner. On 30 October 2024, the examiner withdrew the notice in relation to HYF24. The proceedings were discontinued by consent with the ACIC to pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed.
Contempt proceedings
In certain circumstances, ACIC examiners have the power to apply for a witness to be dealt with for contempt of the ACIC, under section 34B of the ACC Act. Such applications are heard in the Federal Court or the relevant state or territory court.
Three contempt proceedings were finalised in 2024–25.
Purcell v IDN24 [2025] FCA 215
IDN24 (a court-ordered pseudonym) appeared before an ACIC examiner in answer to a summons issued pursuant to section 28 of the ACC Act. On 31 July 2024, contempt proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court on the basis that the ACIC considered IDN24’s answers to questions were false.
On 19 March 2025, the court dismissed the application on the basis that the ACIC had not met the burden of proof required for the court to conclude that IDN24’s answers were false. The ACIC was ordered to pay IDN24’s costs.
Lusty (Examiner) v ITT24 [2025] FCA 141
ITT24 (a court-ordered pseudonym) appeared before an ACIC examiner in answer to a summons issued pursuant to section 28 of the ACC Act. ITT24 refused or failed to take an oath or affirmation, and refused or failed to answer questions an ACIC examiner required ITT24 to answer. On 15 October 2024, contempt proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court.
ITT24 entered a plea of guilty to both contempt charges and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on each charge, and ordered to pay the ACIC’s costs.
Purcell (Examiner) v LAZ24 [2025] FCA 413
LAZ24 (a court-ordered pseudonym) appeared before an ACIC examiner in answer to a summons pursuant to section 28 of the ACC Act. LAZ24 refused to answer 6 questions that an ACIC examiner required LAZ24 to answer. On 9 December 2024, contempt proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court.
LAZ24 entered a plea of guilty to contempt and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay the ACIC’s costs.
On 28 May 2025, LAZ24 filed an appeal against sentence on a number of grounds. The appeal was dismissed on 19 September 2025.