Re: BENEFICIAL FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED and OTHERS And: THE COMMISSIONER OF AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE and OTHERS No. N G176 of 1991 FED No. 640 Administrative Law - Criminal Law - Search Warrants - Practice and Procedure - Interpretation 91 ATC 4882/22 ATR 636/103 ALR 167 (1991) 31 FCR 523 (1991) 58 A Crim R 1
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Sheppard(1), Pincus(2) and Burchett(3) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - Criminal Law - Search Warrants - Search warrants under s. 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 and s. 71 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 - judicial review of issue of warrants - whether informations should be produced to applicants despite public interest immunity objection - whether court should look at informations itself - construction of warrants - whether "and" is used disjunctively - "and" read in the context as meaning "or as well" - not necessary for the justice of the peace to declare in the warrant his own suspicion if he is satisfied there is reasonable ground for suspicion - question whether "is suspected" on reasonable grounds to have been committed refers to an objective assessment of the grounds alleged or a subjective suspicion - whether the warrants contained sufficient statements of the offences referred to in them - whether a search warrant containing an insufficient statement of an offence and also a sufficient one can be severed - discussion of the purpose of the statement of an offence in a warrant - whether it is necessary that a warrant "should state the description of the offence in question with a particularity sufficient to enable the person whose premises are being searched to know the exact object of the search" - whether on the other hand a broad approach should be taken towards the requirement that a warrant contain a sufficient indication of the offence by reference to which it authorizes seizure of particular things - discussion of the effect of the naming of a suspect in the warrant - reference to the undesirability of unnecessarily complicating drafting of warrants - discussion of the relationship between "reasonable ground for suspecting" and "reasonable grounds for believing" in s. 10 and the meaning of "any such offence" - meaning of "evidence of an offence" and "evidence as to the commission" of an offence - meaning of "as to" - meaning of "there are reasonable grounds for believing" - whether a warrant under s. 71 of the Proceeds of Crime Act could contain a less complete statement of an offence than would be requisite under s. 10 of the Crimes Act - whether the s. 71 warrant failed to state a proper purpose for which it was issued within the meaning of s. 71(7)(a) - whether it contained a proper description of the kind of documents authorized to be seized within s. 71(7)(c) - whether the warrant failed to state a belief that an indictable offence had been committed - whether…
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 Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Austral...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd & Ors v. Commissioner of Australian Federal Police [1991] FCA 640 (91 ATC 4882; 22 ATR 636; 103 ALR 167; (1991) 31 FCR 523; (1991) 58 A Crim R 1)
Case
[1991] FCA 640
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd was involved in a legal dispute with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. The nature of the dispute centred on the validity of search warrants issued under sections 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 and 71 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the warrants and the procedures that led to their issuance.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the informations should be produced to the applicants despite the objection of public interest immunity, whether the court should examine the informations itself, and the construction of the warrants, particularly the interpretation of the word "and." The court also examined the necessity for a justice of the peace to declare their own suspicion in the warrant if they were satisfied there was a reasonable ground for suspicion. Furthermore, the court assessed the sufficiency of the statements of the offences in the warrants and whether warrants with both insufficient and sufficient statements of offences could be severed. The court also explored the purpose of the offence statement in a warrant and whether it needed to be particularly detailed.
The court found that the warrants were valid and that the justice of the peace did not need to declare their own suspicion in the warrant if they were satisfied there was a reasonable ground for suspicion. The court interpreted the word "and" in the warrants as meaning "or as well," and held that the warrants contained sufficient statements of the offences referred to in them. The court also determined that the purpose of the offence statement in a warrant was to enable the person whose premises were being searched to know the object of the search, and that a broad approach should be taken towards the requirement that a warrant contain a sufficient indication of the offence. The court concluded that the warrants were valid and that the informations should be produced to the applicants.
The cross-appellants were to bring in short minutes of the orders appropriate to be made in accordance with the reasons of the court. The settlement and entry of orders were to be dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
The cross-appellants bring in short minutes of the orders appropriate to be made in accordance with the reasons of the court.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.