Aweys v The Queen; El Sayed v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during a search of the appellants' premises. The appellants, Aweys and El Sayed, were convicted of drug trafficking offences. They sought to exclude evidence seized during a search of their shared residence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the warrant was lawfully issued and, consequently, whether the evidence obtained pursuant to it was admissible.

The central legal issue was whether the information provided to the issuing officer in support of the search warrant was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that the appellants were involved in drug trafficking. Specifically, the Court considered whether the informant's information was sufficiently particularised and corroborated to justify the belief that the premises were being used for the commission of a drug trafficking offence, as required by the relevant legislation.

The High Court held that the information before the issuing officer did not establish a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion. The informant's information was vague and lacked the necessary particularity to connect the appellants directly to drug trafficking activities at the premises. Furthermore, there was insufficient independent corroboration of the informant's claims. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a search warrant must be based on reasonable suspicion, which requires more than mere conjecture or a general belief. The lack of specificity and corroboration meant the issuing officer could not have formed a reasonable suspicion, rendering the warrant invalid and the subsequent search unlawful.

Consequently, the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible. The High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the appellants be discharged.