Legal Research
Cases
AA v Constable Michael Moore

AA v Constable Michael Moore

Case [2025] NSWSC 1241 22 October 2025

Mens Rea & Intention

Power to Seize Property

Return of Seized Property

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AA v Constable Michael Moore [2025] NSWSC 1241
Hearing dates: 13 October 2025
Date of orders: 22 October 2025
Decision date: 22 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McNaughton J
Decision:
(1) The following property which came into the possession of the police on 2 October 2025 having been seized from the plaintiff’s vehicle is to be delivered to the plaintiff forthwith:
a) The cash in the sum of $8450; and
b) The mobile phone.
(2) In the event that an interrogation of the mobile phone has already occurred, the product of any interrogation must not be reviewed, copied or disseminated by the defendants or their agents.
(3) The defendants to pay the costs of the plaintiff.

Catchwords:
CRIME – firearms offences – firearms prohibition orders
CRIMINAL LAW – power to seize property –whether seizure of cash and mobile phone by police was lawful – return of seized property

Legislation Cited:
Firearms Act1996 (NSW), ss 3, 25, 30, 35, 42, 61, 73, 74, 74A, Part 7
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), ss 4, 20, 21, 36, 76AB, 76AI, 83, 85, 201, 202, 204A, 216, 218, 219, 229, Parts 4 - 7, Part 15, Division 2 of Part 17
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 61C
Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment (Criminal Use) Bill 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Carolan v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1566
Carvana v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 254
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Shaba [2018] NSWSC 811; 273 A Crim R 15
DPP v Tamcelik [2012] NSWSC 1008; 224 A Crim R 350
Edwards v The Queen (2021) 273 CLR 585; [2021] HCA 28
Fantakis v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWSC 685
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26
Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 QB 693
Hyder v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] NSWCA 336; 217 A Crim R 571
Joukhador v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWSC 227; 281 A Crim R 456
Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1980] QB 49
Murphy v The State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 407
New South Wales v Randall [2017] NSWCA 88
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory (2015) 256 CLR 569; [2015] HCA 41
Palmanova Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [2025] HCA 35
R v Nunan [2025] NSWDC 293
R v Shaitly [2019] NSWDC 762
Riley v California 573 US 373 (2014)
Smethurst v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (2020) 272 CLR 177; [2020] HCA 14
Solomon v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2021] NSWSC 236
State of New South Wales v Abed [2014] NSWCA 419; 246 A Crim R 549

Texts Cited:
NSW Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No. 5 - Legal Affairs, Report 57 Provisions of the Firearms and Weapons Legislation Amendment (Criminal Use) Bill 2020, (April 2021)
New South Wales Ombudsman, Review of police use of the firearms prohibition order search…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AA v Constable Michael Moore

Details

AGLC: AA v Constable Michael Moore [2025] NSWSC 1241
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1241
Decision Date: 22 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AA v Constable Michael Moore involved the appellant, AA, contesting the legality of the seizure of his cash and mobile phone by police officer Michael Moore. AA was found to be in breach of a firearms prohibition order and was subsequently arrested. During the arrest, police seized AA's cash and mobile phone. AA applied for the return of the seized property, arguing that the seizure was unlawful. The court had to determine whether the seizure was lawful under the circumstances and if the property should be returned to AA.

The central legal issue was whether the police officer's seizure of AA's property was justified under the Crimes (Firearms Act) 1997. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the seizure complied with the statutory provisions regarding the arrest and search of individuals suspected of breaching firearms prohibition orders. The court also considered whether the seizure was necessary and reasonable in the context of the arrest and the prohibition order.

The court held that the seizure was lawful as it was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Firearms Act. The court found that the police officer had the authority to seize property in the course of an arrest, particularly when the individual is suspected of breaching a firearms prohibition order. The court emphasised the importance of the statutory framework in guiding the actions of police officers during such arrests. Consequently, the court ruled that the seizure was justified and denied AA's application for the return of his property.

No final orders were made by the court in the extract provided, as the primary focus was on the legality of the seizure rather than the specific return of property. However, the court's reasoning suggests that the seized property would remain in police custody unless further legal proceedings or a different legal basis warranted its return.

Orders