Dobbs v Ward

Case [2002] QSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dobbs v Ward & Anor [2002] QSC 109

PARTIES:

GEOFFREY ROBERT DOBBS
(applicant)
v
RAYMOND ALLEN WARD
(first respondent)
MARK ANDREW COCKBURN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S 1833 of 2002
S 1870 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for judicial review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 April 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2002

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

1.        The time for filing the applications for      statutory orders of review is extended to       27 February 2002.

2.        The decision of the first respondent to issue the            search warrant on 29 November 2001 is set            aside.

3.        I declare that the search warrant issued on            29 November 2001 is invalid and that the seizure of            items pursuant to it was unlawful.

CATCHWORDS:

WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – WARRANTS – SEARCH WARRANTS – ISSUE AND VALIDITY – REASONABLE GROUNDS
Where the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision to issue a search warrant under s 69 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act – whether there existed reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of the commission of an offence – whether s 73(1)(c) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act should be construed as limiting the evidence which the warrant must state may be seized under the warrant to that evidence of the commission of the offence as to which the issuer has formed his satisfaction under s69 – whether invalid portions of the search warrant may be severed.

Criminal Code, s 679
Judicial Review Act 1991
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 69, s 73, s 74
Statutory Instruments Act 1992, s 7

Andrews v Howell (1941) 65 CLR 255
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond
 (1990) 170 CLR 321 Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1991) 31 FCR 523
George v Rockett (1991) 170 CLR 104 at 115
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Inland Revenue Commissioner v Rossminster Ltd
[1980] AC 952
Malubel Pty Ltd v Elder (1998) 88 FCR 242; on appeal
73 ALJR 269
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu 
(1996) 185 CLR 259 O’Donoghue v Kordick ex parte O’Donoghue
[1995] 1 Qd R 278
Parker v Churchill (1985) 9 FCR 316
Peters v Attorney-General (NSW) (1988) 16 NSWLR 24 Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266
Williams v Keelty (2001) 111 FCR 175 at 213
Wright & Anor v Queensland Police Service and Ors
[2002] QSC 046

COUNSEL:

Mr Mulholland QC for the applicant
Mr McLeod for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Extension of time

  1. The applicant seeks statutory orders of review of a decision of the first respondent to issue a search warrant, and a decision of the second respondent to execute it.  The applications were filed out of time by some two months, and the applicant seeks corresponding extensions of time.  The first respondent, the Justice of the Peace who issued the search warrant, has previously indicated that he will abide by…

Continue reading Dobbs v Ward

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dobbs v Ward [2002] QSC 109
Case
[2002] QSC 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dobbs v Ward involved the applicant seeking judicial review of a decision to issue a search warrant under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The applicant, Dobbs, contested the validity of the warrant and the seizure of items pursuant to it, arguing that there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of the commission of an offence and that the warrant was invalid. The respondents were the persons who had obtained and executed the warrant, leading to the seizure of items. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether there were reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of the commission of an offence, as required by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. Additionally, the court considered whether section 73(1)(c) of the Act should be interpreted as limiting the evidence that may be seized under the warrant to only that evidence of the commission of the offence as to which the issuer had formed a satisfaction under section 69. Another issue was whether the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed.

The court found that there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting evidence of the commission of an offence, leading to the invalidity of the warrant. The court held that section 73(1)(c) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act should not be construed as limiting the evidence that may be seized under the warrant to only that evidence of the commission of the offence as to which the issuer had formed a satisfaction under section 69. The court also determined that the invalid portions of the search warrant could not be severed, rendering the entire warrant invalid. As a result, the seizure of items pursuant to the warrant was deemed unlawful.

The court set aside the decision of the first respondent to issue the search warrant and declared that the search warrant issued on 29 November 2001 was invalid. Furthermore, the court ruled that the seizure of items pursuant to the warrant was unlawful. The time for filing the applications for statutory orders of review was extended to 27 February 2002.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing the applications for statutory orders of review is extended to 27 February 2002.

2. The decision of the first respondent to issue the search warrant on 29 November 2001 is set aside.

3. I declare that the search warrant issued on 29 November 2001 is invalid and that the seizure of items pursuant to it was unlawful.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.