Corbett v State of New South Wales

Corbett and others (the appellants) brought proceedings against the State of New South Wales (the respondent) concerning a police search conducted under a warrant. The appellants claimed the search constituted trespass, arguing the warrant was invalid. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the search warrant was invalid on several grounds. These included submissions that the application for the warrant did not sufficiently describe the particular offence with which the firearms to be searched for were connected, given the repeal and replacement of the relevant legislation. Further issues concerned whether there had been substantial compliance with the prescribed form for the warrant, whether any alleged defect affected the substance of the warrant in a material particular, and whether the warrant failed to state the offence in relation to which the search was authorised.

The Court of Appeal considered the argument that the warrant was invalid because the application did not describe a particular offence under the *Firearms Act 1989* (NSW) with which the firearms were connected, noting that this Act had been repealed and replaced by the *Firearms Act 1996* (NSW). While a similar offence existed under the later Act, the court examined whether this fell within the savings clause of the 1996 Act. The court also addressed the submission that the warrant was invalid because the appellant did not have reasonable grounds for the asserted belief that an offence had been committed or would be committed. However, the court found that the appellant did have reasonable grounds for this belief. Crucially, the court determined that the prescribed form for the warrant did not require a statement of the offence, and therefore, the absence of such a statement did not render the warrant invalid, overturning previous single judge decisions to the contrary. The court held that the warrant was not invalid on this basis.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the verdict and judgment for the defendant. In lieu thereof, the court entered a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for damages to be assessed, remitting the proceedings to the District Court for a new trial as to damages. The costs of the District Court proceedings were left to the discretion of the judge hearing the new trial, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the application for leave to appeal and the appeal.