3

The Interim Report accepted these submissions. (See Interim Report Ch 1 para 7 and Ch 8.2 para 152.) It is true that not all issues affecting Ms Jackson are being dealt with in the Federal Court proceedings. But it was thought convenient for the Commission to deal with all issues together, rather than in two stages – one, in 2014, dealing with issues other than Federal Court issues, the second a year later, dealing with those of the Federal Court issues which it seemed useful to scrutinise.

It should be noted that the decision was not made on the ground that there would be any contempt of court in taking a different course. The relevant law in relation to how the proceedings of Royal Commissions can amount to contempt of court may be summarised very generally as follows. It may be, and will often be, a contempt of court to make findings about conduct which is the subject of pending criminal proceedings before those criminal proceedings have ended. However, a Royal Commission may carry out investigations and make findings about issues which arise in pending civil proceedings not involving jury trials provided the conduct of the Royal Commission is not prejudicial to them. By “prejudice” is meant “a substantial risk of serious injustice”: Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation (1982) 152 CLR 25 at 99 per Mason J. See also at 100 (non-jury trial). In that case Gibbs CJ gave the following examples of prejudice at 58-59: conducting the inquiry in public in such a way as to “deter witnesses from coming forward to give evidence” in the civil proceedings, or behaving in such a way as to “influence the evidence that the witnesses will give”. Mason J gave as an example conduct by the Commission putting pressure on a party to compromise or abandon its case: at 100. It is not enough that there is a risk of inconsistent findings. No suggestion was made that there was any risk of contempt of court in the present circumstances. However, from the point of view of economy – economy of time, economy of resources, economy of effort – there is much to be said for Royal Commissions abstaining from parallel inquiries. That is so at least where the civil proceedings seem likely to finish within a reasonable time or a time before the end of the Royal Commission. When that happens, the Royal Commission can take advantage of the evidence generated by and the findings made in the civil proceedings. If the civil proceedings are delayed, it may be necessary for the Commission to investigate and report on the issues. None of the dangers described above appear to have any reality in relation to Ms Jackson. There is no doubt that the decision of the Federal Court will rest on the independent views of the trial judge, quite uninfluenced by the opinions of the Commission.

4

Further, issues affecting Ms Jackson are to some extent interlinked with issues affecting others, like Mr Peter Mylan, Mr Michael Williamson, Mr Craig Thomson and the HSU No 1 Branch. Indeed counsel for Mr Mylan also submitted that no findings should be made against him in the Interim Report in view of the existence of civil proceedings between him and the union, to be heard in May 2015. (See 28/1/14 T:60.34-38.)

It was also thought convenient to deal with these issues at the same time as the issues affecting Ms Jackson – not separately.

There is a further difficulty relating to the HSU. Mr Thomson has been involved in criminal proceedings relating to his conduct as an HSU official. Those proceedings have come to an end. But they ended insufficiently early to permit the Commission to inquire into his position. There are also civil proceedings against him which are not yet resolved. In the course of this year it will be necessary to consider whether, and if so to what extent, findings should be made about Mr Thomson.

Whether, and how far, issues affecting Ms Jackson and Mr Thomson should be dealt with in the Final Report will depend on circumstances as they unfold during the year. The submissions in chief of counsel assisting explicitly left that matter open in relation to Ms Jackson (Ch 1.1 para 81). As matters stand, there seems no reason to doubt that Health Services Union v Jackson will be heard and disposed of before 31 December 2015. It is less clear whether the civil proceedings against Mr Thomson will be heard and disposed of before 31 December 2015. Whether or not these events happen, the desirability of dealing with some or all of the issues affecting Ms Jackson is something to be considered later this year. It may be necessary to debate the matter, for the submissions of Ms Jackson’s solicitor opposed that course (WS 14/11/14, paras 102 and 104-107). However, it must be stressed that the issues affecting Ms Jackson should be dealt with unless good cause is shown for a contrary course.