Attorney General for the Northern Territory of Australia v The Queen & John Richard Tomlinson

[1981] FCA 28

C r i n l n a l Lab: and P l o c c d u r e Act

F c d c r a l C o u r t o i . 4 u s t r : l l i a A L t

Snprenc Cour t A c t 1 9 7 9 , s h . 2 1 (

Suprcme Court Rules , 0 . 3 3

9 March 1981

/

Coram:	Fox,	F o r s t e r	a n d	McGregor	J J .
Darwin

11; THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENEEUL DIVISION

No. NTG 39 of 1980

AppeLlant

AND

-

THE	Q U I 3 3
ex	par te
JOHN RICHARD TONLII~~SOX	- .
R e s p o n d e n t

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER. Fox, Fors te r and N c G r c g o r JJ

DATE OF ORDER. 1 7 March 1981

WHERE MADE. D a r w i n

The Court orders t h a t .

1) The appeal be d i s m i s s e d w ' i t h cos t s .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

No. NTG 39 of 1980

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE

NORTIIER:, TZRRiT0r.Y OF AUSTRALIA ---

A p p e l l m t

N J D

THE QUEIX

ex	p a r t e
J O H N KLCilAP33	T0::LINSON

-

Respondent:

COP&[:  FOX, FORSTER and MCGWGOR JJ

The 17th day of March, 1981.

The Attorney-General for the Northern Tcrr l tory

(appel lan t ) appea ls aga ins t an in t e r locu to ry o rde r made by

h i s Honour Mr. J u s t i c e Muirhead on the 2 December 1989.

On 2 0 Narch 1980, a search warrant, which 1 s t h e

subjec t of the a rgument in th i s case , was issued by Kr. G.P.

Galvin, Chief St ipendiary Magistrate for the Northern Terr i tory,

i n pu rpor t ed r e l i ance on the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of

t he Nor the rn Te r r i t o ry , s . lO(b ) . Sec t ion lO(b) i s as follovs.

"10. If a Jus t ice of the Peace i s s a t i s f i e d by

evidence on oa th , whether ora l ly o r by

a f f idav i t , t ha t t he re a re r easonab le g rounds f o r

b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e r e	i s	i n c e r t a i n p r e m i s e s o r	a
v e h i c l e , v e s s e l ,	a i rcraf t	o r p l a c e	-

.	..
(b ) a n y t h i n g as t o w h j c h t h e r e a r e r c a s o n a h l c

g r o u n d s	f o r b e l l e v ~ n f i	t h e t	I t 1\~111	afforc!
ev ic lcncc a s	t o t h c commission	o f	such	a n
o f f e n c e . "

T h e h a r r a n t i n t e r m s permitted >carcl] f o r ~ n t l

s e l z u r e	01	a n y v l d c o	t a p e c l c p i c t i c z	t h e a r r e s t	O C	Leof f r c )
Yumarra on c e r t a i n l n c ~ d e n t s o c c u r r c d	1 0 F e b r u a r v	1 9 7 6 .	I h c r e a f t e r ,	on	t h c bamc	day ,

at l \ ' ~ n n c l l l c hhen p o l l c c offlcfrc,

r e l y i n g on t h e w a r r a n t , s e l z r d c o p l c s o f v ~ t l e o t a p e 11 L m

f r o m J o h n R l c h a r d T o m l l n s o n ( r c s p o n d e n t ) .

On 2 2 J u l y 1 9 6 0 , t h r e e c o m p l : 1 i n t s and a n ~nI .onia t1Gl l

were l a l d on o a t h a g a i n s t t h e s a l d r e s p o n d e n t a n d sur1monscs

s c r v c d o n h i m I n r e s p e c t o f t h c m . IWO o f t h e s a i d c o n p l a l r l l s

a r e s e t o u t I n n l a t e r l a l p l a c e d b e f o r c us as f o l l o a s : -

9 , . . . (The Respondent l . . . On tht.

2 0 t h d a y of March 1380 a t Darwin 111

t h c N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y - o f Australia

resisted a member o f	t h e P o l l c e F o r c e
i n	t h e e x e c u t l o n o f h i s d u t y c o n t r a r y

t o S e c t i o n 1 5 8	o f	t h c	P o l l c e A d m l n ~ s t r n t i o ~ ;
Act.	.

. . . AND FURTHER o n	t h e	2 0 t h	d a y	o f
March	1 9 6 0 a t	D a r a l n o b s t r u c t c d	a	mcmher

o f t h e P o l l c c F o r c e i n t h e c x e c u t i ~ n o f

h i s d u t y .

C o n t r a r y t o S e c t l o n 1 5 9 o f t h e P o l i c e

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Act."

I t a p p e a r s f rom t h c p a r t i c u l a r s s u p p l i c d i n r c s p e c t

o f	t h e	i l r s t c h a r g e	t h a t	t h c a l l c g e d r c s i s r ~ n g	bv	t h c	responclcl1t
o c c u r r e d	Ichen	t h e m c n h e r o f	t h e p o l l c c	f o r c e	was	e x c c u t l n g	t h e

s e a r c h w a r r a n t r e f e r r e d t o e a r l l c r .

On 2 7 O c t o b e r l 9 S O t h e m a t t e r t h c s:lh)rct o f

t h e c o n p l a l n t s came on f o r h e a r l n g b c f o r e ?ir Tlurph\-, S t j p r n J ; a ~ v

M a g i s t r a t e , I n t h e Summary C o u r t 01 J u r ~ s d ~ ~ t ~ o n I n ll~rv:in,

w h e r e u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o u n s e l c h a l l e n g e d t h r val1~11 t y

o f t h c w a r r a n t a n d s o u g h t : i n a d ~ o u r n n e n t a € t n e hcarlny,.

On 29 Oc tobe r l9SO 111s l.'orsh1p rcfusec! t o T L ~ I

u p o n t h c v a l ~ d l t y o f t h e u a r r a n t o r t o g r a n t a further

a d ~ o u r n m e n t ; b u t I o r o t h c r r e a s o n s u n c o n n c c t e d with this

a r g u m e n t ,	t h e	f u r t h c r	h e a r i n g	was,	i n	f a c t ,	a d l o u r n c d	on	tl?,:t
day .

On 1 2 November l9SO a n o r d e r 11151 f o r ~ c r t l ~ ) r a r 1

was made by h i s Honour Jlr J u s t i c e ? l u l r h e a d t o q u a s h t h c s e a r c h

w a r r a n t i s s u e d b y t h c l e a r n e d C h i e f S t l p c n d i a r v 7 l a g l s t r a t r .

On 15 November lOS0 t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s o l 1 c l t o r T

a p p l i e d f o r d l r e c t l o n s a n d hls H o n o u r ' s o r d c r was made on 2

December 1980. I t 1s a g a i n s t t h a t o r d e r t h a t

, t h e p r e s c n t a p p e a l 1s b m u g h t .

Upon a p p l i c a t ~ o n made on 9 Decel:tber 1 9 6 0 , p u r s u a n t

t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t Act 1979 s .78 , it was o r d e r e d t h a t t h e

A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l € o r t h e N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y be ~ o i n c d as a

p a r t y t o t h e s e p r o c e e d l n g s , a n d h e i s t h e a p p e l l a n t .

On t h e a p p e a l c o m i n g o n t o b c h c a r d t h c r e W A S

no a p p e a r a n c e b y o r on b e h a l f o€ t h e r e s p o n d e n t Mr t i .a lvin,

and no e v i d e n c e t h a t h e h a d b e e n s c r v c d . At t h e r e q u c s t o f

t h e c o u r t a n a p p e a r a n c e was l a t e r made by counscl on 111s

b e h a l f , who s u b m l t t e d t o such o r d e r :is t h e c o u r t m ~ g h t n a k c .

Thc o r d e r u n d c r a p p c a l g i v e s d 1 r c c t 1 0 1 1 s 2s t u

t h e h e a r i n g , o r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e h e a r l n g , o f t h c r c t ~ ~ r n o r

t h c o r d e r n 1 s 1 f o r c c r t l o r a r j . I t i s i n a n unusu.11 IOIIII 111

t h a t , a f t e r f o r l n a l s t a t e m c n t s , l t r e a d s -

1 1 . . . 1'1 I S ORDE.EEII l'li.2T __ u p o n t h e r c tu rn O €

t h c o r d e r n l s j f o r c c r t i o r a r i t h c f O l l O \ i ~ ~ l ~

m n t c r i a l b e c o n s ~ d e r c c l upon t h e s u b s t : * n t l r c

! V

a rgumcn t : - . . .

(kc h a v e u n d e r l i n e d " c o n s i d c r c d " . )

T h e r e a f t e r follows J. l l s t o j v(ir10us n J t e r t n 1 '

t h c a f f l d a v l t o i J o h n R i c h a r d T o n l m s c n

a n d e x h l b ~ t s t h c r c t o a l r e a d y filed;

t h e o r i g l n a l h a r r a n t ;

a n y r e c o r d s n a l n t a i n e d b y t h c C h i e f

S t l p c n d ~ a r y > l a g l s t r a t e r e l a t l n g t o

t h e I s s u e o i t h e +:arrant 111 question;

a f f l d a v l t e v i d e n c e o f t h e C h i e f

S t l p e n d i a r y h l n g l s t r d t c r e l a t i n g t o

a n y i n f o r m a t i o n o r c v l d e n c e s u p p l i e d

t o h i m a t	t h e	t l m e	. h e g r a n t e d t h e
w a r r a n t ;
a f f i d a v l t	c v l d e n c e	o f	I n s p e c t o r

O ' R r i e n s e t t i n g o u t t h c ~ n f o r m a t i o n

o r e v l d c n c c s u p p l i e d b y him ( o r a n y

o t h c r p o l l c c o f f i c c r i n h i s p r e s e n c e )

t o t h e ChleC S t l p e n d i a r y ' f 4 a g 1 s t r n t e .

I n h i s u s c o f t h e l iord " c o n s l d c r c d " , I t w o u l d

a p p e a r	t h a t	h i s	l l o n o u r p a i d	due	d e f e r e n c e	t o	t h e a r g u n e n t
o n b e h a l f t h a t o n s u c h a n a p p l i c a t i o n ,	o f	t h e	A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l ,	w h l c h	was	t o	t h e e f f e c t

t h e o n l y na t t e r t o b e c o n s i d e r e d

s h o u l d b e t h e b a r r a n t i t s e l f . I t a p p e a r s t h a t 111s [Ionour

p r o b a b l y i n t e n d e d t h a t t h c r e s o l u t l o n of t h l s m a t t e r b e l e f t

o p e n t o t h e a r g u m e n t w h i c h m i g h t be p r e s e n t c l l I n due c o u r s e

t o make t h e o r d e r a b s o l u t e . To havc d o n e o t h c r w i s e lbould havc

b e e n t o e n t e r u p o n t h c s u b s t a n c c o f t h r h e a r i n g t o nake t h c

r u l e a b s o l u t e .

F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s appeal WC a re p r e p s r e d

' t o assume t h a t t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n came w i t h l n t h e p o w e r s

e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y g i v e n t o ~ u d g e s o f t h e Suprenlc Court

( s e e O r d e r 3 3 ) , a n d t h a t t h e o r d e r u n d e r a p p e a l 1s a " Judgven t "

w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f A u s t r a l i a Act 1 9 7 6 ,

s . 2 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( s e e 5 . 4 ) . No a r g u m e n t o n t h e s e mattcrs \;as acidressei

t o us .

T h e a p p e l l a n t by h i s c o u n s e l d o e s n o t o b j e c t t o

t h e p r o d u c t i o n a n d t a k i n g i n t o Evidence o n t h e r e t u r n o f t h c

o r d e r n i s i o f t h e d o c u m e n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n ( a ) a n d ( b ) o f t h e

d i r e c t i o n s . C o u n s e l ' s s u b m i s s i o n i s ' t h a t h c o t h e r d i r e c t i o n s

d i s p l a y a wrong view o f t h e r e l e v a n t law, a n d s h o u l d n o t have

b e e n g i v e n . T h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l asser ts a nurnber o f e r r o r s

i n t h e d i r e c t i o n s g l v e n b u t t h e e s s e n c e o f t h e n a t t e r c a n h e

f o u n d i n ( a ) a n d ( b ) w h l c h a r e a s f o l 1 o r s : -

. .. r

" ( a ) f l n d l n g t h a t I n t h e c a s c o f p r o c c c d i n c s

b r o u g h t t o t e s t thc v a l ' l d ~ t y o f : i s c a r c h

w a r r a n t	i s s u c d p u r s u a n t	t o	t h e	p ~ o v l s l o n s
o f S e c t i o n	1 0	o f	t h e C r l n i n a l	L ~ I : and

P r o c e d u r e A c t o f t h e h ' o r t h e r n T c r r l t c j r y

o f Australia t h a t t h e r c c o r d t o b e e s m m c ( !

c o m p r i s e s	anything	n o r e	t h a n	t h e w a r r a n t
i t s e l f ;

( b ) i n d e c l d l n g t h a t t h e i s h u e o f t h c x a l ~ d ~ t v

o r o t h e r t b l s c o f t h e w a r r a n t w s t o b c

d e c i d e d b y c o n s l d e r i n g m t e r l a l a d d l t l o n s l

t o t h a t a p p c a r l n g u p o n t h c f a c e o f t h e

r e c o r d . "

T h e r e i s no a t t a c k u p o n t h e o r d e r n i s i i t s e l f a n d

W C must was a case t o assume t h a t i t was c o r r e c t l y m a d e , that i s , t h a t t h c r c

s u p p o r t i t .

T h e c o n t e n t i o n of c o u n s e l f o r t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l

i s t h a t c o m p l i e s w l t h i n t h e c a s e of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t w h i c h o n i t s f a c e

s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s a n d c

i s o t h e r v l s e r e g u l a r

t h e c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n s h o u l d n o t r e c e i v e a n y f u r t h e r e v l d e n c e , e v c n a l t h o u g h .

.

t o g r a n t t h e w a r r a n t i s c h n l l c n g e d . \'?c havc

n o t b e e n d i r e c t i o n s . s h o w n t h e a f f i d a v i t r e f e r r e d t o I n f a ) o f t h e

A l t h o u g h c o u n s e l f o r t h e A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l m d f o r

t h e p r o s e c u t o r w e r e a n x i o u s t o a r g u e a q u e s t i o n a h o u t w h z t

m a t e r i a l s h o u l d b e e x a m i n e d when c o n s l d e r l n g t h c v a l i d i t y o f

a	s e a r c h w a r r a n t ,	t h e c o u r t	r a l s e d w i t h	t h e m a t	t h c	o u t c l ' t	t h e
.. .

!

q u e s t i o n w h e t h c r we c o u l d o r s h o u l d c n t e r t a l n t h e a p p c a l . As

b o t h s u b m i t t c d t h a t t h c a p p e a l c o u l d p r o c e e d on t h e q u c s t i o n

t h e y w i s h e d t o a r g u c , wc h c a r d s u b m i s s i o n s t h e r c o n a n d ',,l11

l a t e r make some comments on t h e i r r c l e v a n c e a n d m e r l t s . K C re

o f t h c v i e w , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h c q u c s t l o n c o n c s h e f o r c us a t a

p r e m a t u r e s t a g e , a n d i s as a r e s u l t a n a b s t r a c t o n e . I t h 3 5

...

l o n g b e e n h e l d t h a t s u c h a q u e s t i o n s h o u l d n o t be dcn l t . ~ l t h ,

a n d a s b e l n g i n t h a t s c n s e b e y o n d t h e p o w c r o i t h e c o u r t t o

which i t 1s p r e s e n t e d . ( S t e p h e n s o n Blakc 6 Co. v Grant, Lcslos -

6 Co. ( 1 9 1 7 ) 86 L . J . C h . 4 3 9 ; A u s t r a l ~ a n C o ~ : : m o n ~ e a l t h

Sh ipp ing Board v Fede ra t ed Seamcn ' s Un ion o i 4 u s t r a l 1 : j - /1L)25)

3 6 CLR 4 4 2 , 4 5 2 ) . In o u r v i e w , t h e s a m e h o l d s g o o d i n a n

a p p e a l u n d e r t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f A u s t r a l i a A c t .

We a r c a s k e d t o d e c i d c t h e q u e s t i o n without

r e f e r c n c e t o t h e e v i d e n c e a l r e a d y c a l l c d , a n d w i t h o n l y a

l i m i t e d f o r e s i g h t o f w h a t t h e u l t m a t e f a c t s m i g h t be Iound

t o be.	The	principal	r e l i e f	s o u g h t	i s i n a n y	e v e n t	t o	a	l i m l t c d
d e g r e e	d i s c r e t i o n a r y	(R	v	S t a f f o r d	J u s t i c e s	(19.10)	2	KB	5 3

a t 4 3 , 4 4 ; Yirrell v Y i r r e l l ( 1 9 3 0 ) 6 2 CLR 2 8 7 a t 2 9 7 1 . A

d e c i s i o n on	(c)	,	( d )	a n d	( e )	of	t h e	d i r e c t i o n s	will	n o t	o f
-

i t s e l f d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e betw-ecn t h e p a r t i e s a n d may o r may

n o t p r o v e t o b e c r l t i c a l i n d o i n g s o .

I I i s Honour was n o t f i n a l l y d c t e r m i n l n g w h a t

m a t e r i a l c o u l d b e e x a m i n e d b y t h e c o u r t w h i c h w o u l d d e c l d c

i n d u c c o u r s e w h e t h e r t h e writ would go ; h e v a s e n d e a v o u r ~ n g

t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e n a t u r e o f m a t e r l a l w h i c h m i g h t b e t h o ~ q h t

on t h e q u e s t i o n 01 v a l l c l i t y

b y t h e f u t u r e p r e s i d i n g ~ u d g e t o b e m a t e r i a l he s h o u l d conslci.cr!.

. . - ,--

I

- X -

I t s admission vou ld depend on a number o i m a t t e r s , 1 n c l u d j n z

I ts f o r m , a n d h i s I l o n o u r ' s o r d c r c o u l d n o t f o r e c l o s c a r g u m c r l t

a s t o e v i d e n c e a d m l s s i b i l l t y a t t h a t s t a g e . W r t h c r c v ~ d c n c r , o r

o f a d l f f c r c n t n a t u r c , may we l l b c a d m l s s l b l e . A

c o n f l l c r o f t e s t i m o n y m i g h t a r i s e . 111s I-lonour 's o r J c r xL.as

a p r o c e d u r a l s t e p i n t h e p r o c c e d i n g s , ~ ~ t l l o u t f 1 n a 1 1 t y . I t

w a s I n t e n d e d t o h e l p t h e p a r t i c s I n t h e p r e p a r n t l o n o f t h c l r

c a s e s a n d h a s d o u b t l e s s d o n e s o . But n c l t h e r can a p p e a l 3i

t h i s s t a g e .

The a b s t r a c t n a t u r c o f t h e q u e s t l o n v#as e m p h ~ s i s c d

i n a r g u m e n t b y t h e f a c t t h a t a l t h o u g h i n v l t e d t o do s o , n c l t h c r

c o u n s e l s o u g h t t o c x a m i n c c l o s e l y b e f o r e 11s t h e t c r m s o f t h c

w a r r a n t o r how c o n s i s t e n t I t h-as w l t h t h c s t a t u t o r y g r a n t

o f power	undcr	which	i t	1 s	s a l d	t o	h a v e	b e e n	~ s s u c d . The
q u e s t i o n	p o s e d	h a s	b e e n	e x t r a c t e d	from	t h e	c v l t l e n c e	~n	t h e
case;	it d o e s	n o t	come	b e f o r e	u s a s p a r t	o f	a	s t a t c l l	c a s c
( s e e	s .21 (1 )	o f	the Supreme Cour t	Act	1 9 7 9 ;	cf	Spratt	v	Ilermes -

(1965) 1 1 4 CLK 2 2 6 ) ; and even a s t a t e d c a s e x o u l d havc t o J e a l

w i t h u l t i m a t e f a c t s .

T h e o r d e r i n q u e s t l o n w a s made by h i s Honour a f t e r

-

hearing argument a t some l e n g t h , m a l n l y as t o c h a t c o n s t l t u t c s

t h e	" r e c o r d "	f o r	t h c	p u r p o s e s	o	f	c e r t l o r a r i .	B e c a u s e	t h i 5	1 s	l
l

a c a s e w h i c h a d m j t t e d l y i n v o l v c s t h c J u r i s d i c t l o n o f t h c

m a g i s t r a t e ( s i t t i n g a s a Justice o f t h c p e a c e ) t h e a s c e r t a l n m e n t

o f w h a t constitutes t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t t a k e o n thc s l g n l f l c a n c e

i t h a s when t h e s o l e q u e s t l o n i s one o i e r r o r o f law on th r

f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d . T h i s l a t t e r b a s i s f o r c e r t i o r a r i h a s h a d

a d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r y from tha t re la t ing to absence of

j u r i s d i c t i o n , and the extent of the mater ia ls which may be

examined	f o r e r r o r o f	law has been the subJect of	much
discussion and difference of opinion	( s e e	",Principles	of

Aus t ra l ian Adminis t ra t ive Law" 'Whitmore 5th edn. (1980)

pp . 174-178). I n a case such as the p resent , i f the p rosecuror

i s success fu l , t he e f f ec t ive pa r t of t h e o r d e r w i l l be tha t t he

warrant be quashed It may be that for sove purposes the

record	w i l l	i n c l u d e t h e a f f i d a v i t ( i f	any)	l ead ing to	the
war ran t , o r	some	note of	the "evidence	on oath" kept	by t h e

magis t ra te , bu t i t is confusing and as a genera l p ropos i t ion

wrong to say that: only the "record" can be looked a t , j t i s

we l l e s t ab l i shed	by	many	a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t i f n e c e s s a r y
evidence can be received	i n	the ce r t io ra r i p roceed ings	which

goes t o show want of j u r i sd i c t ion . Ha l sbury ' s Laws of

'	England,	4th	edi t ion,	Vol .	11,	pa ra .	1559 s t a t e s	t h e	law as
follows

"Where c e r t i o r a r i i s sought on the ground

of e r ror of law on the face of the record,

the cour t w i l l not admit any extraneous

evidence	the	error	must be	apparent	from
t h e	r e c o r d	i t s e l f .	Where	c e r t i o r a r i	i s

sought on the ground of absence or

excess j u r i sd i c t ion , -b l a s o f by i n t e r e s t , ..

f r aud o r b reach o f na tu ra l j u s t i ce ,

extraneous evidence of these matters w i l l

be admissible, and indeed necessary, i f they

are not apparent on the face of the record."

The warrant i s i n a s tandard form, apparent ly

prepared for use under other legis la t ion There are a

number of e r r o r s i n i t , and in the middle , where reference is made

- 1 0

t o t h c o f f e n c e , 1 t i s j u m b l c d . S e c t l o n 305 o f t h e C r l r a ~ n a l

Law C o n s o l i d a t l o n Act and Ord lnancc 1 8 7 6 - 1 9 6 0 , k h l c h i s

r e f c r r e d t o , r c l a t e s t o t h e m a l l c l o u s p b 1 1 ( . a t l o n c r :j

d e f a m a t o r y l l b e l , k n o h l n g t h c same t o b e ialbc, and ~ : o t

slmply " d c f a m a t o r y l i b e l " , a s 5 t a t c d I n t h e h a r r a n t . I;'heren\

s . 2 0 ( b ) o f t h c L r l m l n n l I.ah and T'roccdurc .Act r e f e r s t o

e v l d e n c c o n o a t h , t h c h a r r a n t r c t c r s t n ~- J n f o r m d t J u n on oat;^. .-.

l h e s u h - s e c t 1 0 1 1 r c f r r s t o r c n s o n a l ~ l e q ~ o u n d s for h c l l e ~ - i n ~ : .~

t h e p r e s c n c e o f goods i n c e r t a l n p r c ~ n l s e s , b u t t h c ! \ . j r r n n t

s a y s t h e j u s t i c e o f t h c p e a c e had r c a s o n n b l c ground f o r

s u s p e c t i n q t h e l r p r e s e n c e t h c r c . K h l l e b e l l e f 1x1)- bc

r e g a r d e d a s e n c o m F a s s l n g s u s p l c l o n , i n t h e a b s e n c c o f a

s p e c l a l c o n t e n t t h e r e v e r s e 1 s n o t t r u e ( s c e S h o r t e r OuiorLl

English D i c t l o n a r y ; 3 r d E h . pp 3 6 5 , 2 3 0 4 , 1 0 Corpus J u r ~ s

Secundum p . 3 3 8 and c f . G.11. Pho tograph) - P ty . L td . v . > ! c C a r r ~ g l ~ .

(1974) 2 NSNLR G35 a t 6 4 3 ) .

I t 1 s f o r t h e t r l a l J U ~ ~ C t o d c c i d e w h a t e f f e c t , 1;

a n y , t h e s e e r r o r s a n d v a r ~ a t i o n s h n v c o n t h c ~ a l l d ~ t : o f t h e

w a r r a n t . We r e f e r t o t h e m a t t e r f o r t h r e e r e a s o n 5 . Thc

a r g u m e n t b e f o r e u s assumed thaJ t he h a r r a n t \cas va l l r l and

r e g u l a r o n I t s f a c c ; t h i s \ \as t h e - f o u n d a t l o n o f t h e ar:umcnL o n

b e h a l f o f t h e A t t o r n c y - G c n c r a l . A s \ b e h a v e s a l d , t h c m a t t c r

was n o t a r g u e d . The f a c t 1 s t h a t , h a v l n g b e e n ~ s s u c d b y a n

I n f e r i o r t r l b u n a l o r a u t h o r l t y , t h c h a r r a n t m u s t show juris-

d i c t i o n o n I t s f a c e ; ( G o s s c t t v Hohard ( 1 8 4 7 ) 1 0 QB 359 and

see Ylrrell v Y l r r e l l (1939) G2 C1 K 2 8 7 c s p c c i a l l v a t 3 9 8 , 3 0 7 - S ) :

In t h e a b s e n c e o f s p e c l a l s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s l o n r e g u l a l i t y 1 s n o t

a s s u m e d . I f i t d o e s n o t show j u r i s d i c t i o q I t IS i n v a l l d .

i

o f

j

the warrant, because i t does p u r p o r t t o sllok conlpl iance I

wl th the requirements o f S . 10(b) . T l n r d , t h c l a c t t h a t ~t 1 s I

r e g u l a r on	I t s f n c c	does not	cscluclc ex-idencc go l r lg	t o s h o ~
absence	o f	~ u r i s d i c t l o n ;	i t folloh-s frol!) h1i:lt	has
a l r c a d y	been	s a d tha t an	assertion	01 t h c e s ~ s t c n c e o f

~ u r ~ s d l c t l o n i s not concluslve.

\Fe arc> 01 t hc view t h a t t h e appedl <hould h e

dlsmlssed with c o s t s , and we so o r d c r .

.