Anti Corruption Commissions
-
Statutory anti‑corruption bodies operate independently of the three branches of government to strengthen accountability. Their broad investigative powers help address corruption but can risk breaching rights such as procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence, creating tension between effective oversight and individual human rights protections.
-
NSW ICAC wields court‑like power without judicial safeguards, conducts public hearings that can cause severe and irreversible reputational harm, and operates as a parallel justice system despite not being a court. Its broad powers risk destroying careers and lack adequate avenues for redress.
-
The ICAC Stats page highlights significant delays between ICAC public inquiries and criminal sentencing, averaging nearly four years and sometimes exceeding seven. These delays hinder timely justice and raise concerns about efficiency. The page compares ICAC’s performance with NSW courts to show how protracted processes undermine fairness and accountability.
Delayed Justice and Anti- Corruption Bodies:
How does NSW ICAC measure up?
Overview
In preparation for the Submission to the NSW Parliamentary Committee inquiry into the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Act, the Rule of Law Education Centre prepared a report regarding ICAC investigations from 2012 to 2017.
The report highlights the delays in bringing wrongdoers to justice after they have been investigated by ICAC and accused of corruption.
Why is a Prompt Trial Important?
The legacy of a fair and prompt trial goes back to clause 40 of the Magna Carta which states
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
This is also reflected in Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.”
Summary
These findings include data from the 28 NSW ICAC Investigation Reports published from the years 2012 to 2017.
In summary, 136 individuals were found to have been involved in corrupt conduct with 29% going on to being sentenced by the Courts. The average time from the date of Public Inquiry to Sentencing was almost 4 years (3 years and 10 months).
1. Time from Public Inquiry to Date of Sentencing
The first aim of the research was to investigate the length of time in-between the public inquiry and the date of sentencing for the individuals who have been found corrupt by ICAC. From the years 2012 to 2017, the average length of time from Public Inquiry to Court Sentence is 3.9 years or 3 years and 10 months.
The data showed that it can take anywhere from 1 year and 9 months (Mr Au in Operation Barrow 2012) to over 6 years (Mr Chacra in Operation Yancey 2016) from the time of Public Inquiry to date of sentencing. These figures do not take into account those individuals who are still waiting to be sentenced such as Mr Andjic in Operation Yancey 2016 whose Public Hearing was over 7 years ago.
2. Individuals found to have engaged in Corrupt Conduct but not criminally charged
The second aim of the research was to investigate what percentage of people who received a corrupt finding were also sentenced through the court system. From the years 2012 to 2017, only 29% of people who were found corrupt through an ICAC investigation were then sentenced in the court system.
For example, in Operation Jarek in 2012, 41 individuals were found to have been involved in corrupt conduct, but only 6 (14%) of these individuals were sentenced.
Methodology
The information for this report was sourced from the NSW ICAC website: ICAC Past Investigations page,under each individual operation’s page. The information about the investigation and Public Inquiry wasfound in the official report for each investigation, while the information about the DPP and trial was found under the Recommendations for Prosecutions drop-down menu on the operations’ page.The information collected includes: the Name of the Operation, the individual investigated, when the public inquiry was conducted, the result of the investigation, when the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) served the court notices, the crimes which the individuals were charged with and the result of the trial, including their date of sentencing.
*Note: The years 2018 and onwards are not included in these data sets as cases are still going through the court system.
Related Resources
-
This explainer outlines what Royal Commissions are, how they operate and why governments use them to investigate major issues. It explains their powers, independence, terms of reference, how they differ from courts, and why they are considered inquiries of last resort. It also explores recent calls for a Federal Royal Commission and how these inquiries strengthen public confidence and the rule of law.
-
Explains how checks and balances operate within Australia’s system of government to limit the concentration of power and ensure accountability. Highlights the roles of Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary in scrutinising each other’s actions, preventing abuses of authority, and upholding the rule of law.
-
Students develop a road map that shows the elements that can lead to the erosion of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism. Adding elements such as stops, landmarks, side roads or scenes to develop understanding of threats to democracy.
Explore Related Topics
-
Royal Commissions
Explore resources on Royal Commissions, outlining how these inquiries investigate major issues, and drive transparency, accountability and reform through independent processes, public hearings and detailed final reports.
-
Checks and Balances on Power
Explore resources on checks and balances, explaining how oversight limits power and ensures decisions remain lawful and accountable through independent scrutiny and transparent review processes.
-
Democracy
Explore resources on democracy, highlighting how accountability and representative institutions ensure power is exercised fairly and transparently through open processes, civic engagement and responsible governance.