Bitter row over Crown inquiry’s powers spills over to the Supreme Court

The ‘clumsy’ wording of NSW’s royal commission laws had led the state’s gaming authority to wrongly claim it had ‘draconian powers’, a NSW court hears.

Billionaire Lawrence Ho. Picture: Bloomberg

The “clumsy” wording of NSW’s royal commission laws had led the state’s gaming authority to wrongly claim it had all the “draconian powers” of a royal commission in its upcoming inquiry into Crown Resorts’ gaming operations, a NSW court has been told.

Melco Resorts, the casino empire owned by Macau gaming tycoon Lawrence Ho, has launched an extraordinary 11th-hour legal challenge to the NSW gaming regulator, accusing it of overstepping its powers.

The gaming inquiry was initially triggered by James Packer’s decision to sell 19.9 per cent of his Crown shares, potentially worth $1.75bn, to Melco Resorts.

At stake is Crown Resorts’ ­fitness to hold its high-rollers ­casino licence at Sydney’s Barangaroo, which is due to open its doors next year.

Launching the inquiry in January, commissioner Paddy Bergin SC said it would be conducting a forensic inquiry into the alleged “criminal infiltration” of Crown’s casino operations using the full powers of a royal commission.

But barrister Stephen Finch SC, acting for Melco Resorts, told the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday that the NSW Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority’s Crown Resorts inquiry — which is due to begin hearings on February 24 — “is not and never was a royal commission”.

Mr Finch said under Section 17 (4) and 17 (5) of the NSW Royal Commission Act, the state’s gaming authority inquiries were “explicitly excluded” from forcing witnesses to give evidence or hand over documents that were in breach of the professional lawyer-client privilege.

He said after four months of “extremely polite” negotiations, the ILGA’s refusal to concede it did not have the power to impose “this dreadful incursion … into civilian rights” had left Melco Resorts no option but to head to court.

Mr Finch told Supreme Court judge Christine Adamson if the NSW parliament had wanted to give gaming inquiries the power to breach legal professional privilege it could have done so.

“You say, in effect, the (NSW Attorney-General) is asking this court … to do its dirty work (regarding the abrogation of privilege) … when it didn’t have the fortitude to have the debate in parliament?’ Justice Adamson said.

Mr Finch replied: “The (NSW Royal Commission Act) makes it clear that these hurdles (under section 17) have to be specifically addressed … even under the royal commission rules.”

Stephen Free SC, on behalf of the ILGA, told the court Melco had “misread” the legislation.

Justice Adamson reserved her decision.