AD v New South Wales Police

The case involved an urgent application by the plaintiffs, who were both under 18 years of age, to stay an interim forensic procedure order made under section 32 of the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. The police sought hair samples from the plaintiffs as part of a criminal investigation. The application was initially successful, and the plaintiffs sought to continue the stay pending a final hearing. The legal issues before the court were whether the stay should be continued and the relevance of the final hearing being conducted before a magistrate under section 30 of the Act.

The court found that the plaintiffs' application to continue the stay was not well founded. The court held that the final hearing should be conducted before a magistrate, as provided for in section 30 of the Act, and not before a judge of the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that the provisions of the Act, particularly sections 30 and 32, were clear and unambiguous and did not permit a final hearing to be conducted before a judge of the Supreme Court. The court also found that the plaintiffs' argument that the final hearing should be conducted before a judge of the Supreme Court because of the urgency of the application was not well founded. The court held that the final hearing could be conducted expeditiously before a magistrate, and that the plaintiffs' rights would be adequately protected.

The court lifted the stay and dismissed the plaintiffs' application. The court held that the plaintiffs' rights would be adequately protected in the final hearing before a magistrate, and that the public interest in the investigation of crime outweighed the plaintiffs' privacy interests. The court also found that the plaintiffs' argument that the final hearing should be conducted before a judge of the Supreme Court because of the potential for bias on the part of a magistrate was not well founded. The court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any actual or apprehended bias on the part of a magistrate, and that the plaintiffs' rights would be adequately protected in the final hearing.

The final orders of the court were that the stay be lifted, and that the summons be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs' application was not well founded and that the public interest in the investigation of crime outweighed the plaintiffs' privacy interests. The court also held that the plaintiffs' rights would be adequately protected in the final hearing before a magistrate.