Esso Australia Ltd v Curran, C.J - [1989] FCA 39

Re: ESSO AUSTRALIA LTD
And: CHRISTOPHER JOHN CURRAN; KARL LESLIE KENT; DAVID STEPHEN JONES;
MICHAEL STAFFORD HAWLEY; PETER BARRINGTON CROZIER and PETER JOHN SCHILLER
No. NSW G28 of 1989
Administrative Law
(1989) 39 A Crim R 157

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Hill J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - validity of search warrant issued pursuant to s.10 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - meaning of "information" within s.10 Crimes Act 1914 - degree of specificity with which suspected offences must be stated in search warrant - validity of warrant where commission of stated offence legally impossible - effect of s.5 Crimes Act 1914 - lawfulness of continued detention of "things" seized which do not satisfy description in warrant.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss. 5, 10

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, ss. 97, 98

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 17:2:1989

Counsel and Solicitors for D.E. Grieve Q.C and
the Applicant: P. Blackburn-Hart

instructed by Westgarth Middletons.

Counsel and Solicitors for D.M. Bennett Q.C. and
Respondents: A.C. Bennett instructed

by Director of Public Prosecutions.

JUDGE1

Esso Australia Ltd. ("the applicant") seeks an injunction restraining each of the respondents who are officers of the Australian Federal Police from executing two search warrants issued to them by Mr. Condie a Justice of the Peace and an order that the respondents deliver up to the applicant such documents, materials and things as were seized by the respondents on 2 February last from the applicant's premises.

The two warrants in question relate to different premises and name in certain respects different officers as adressees. Subject to these matters, each warrant was in similar form. By way of example, one warrant was, omitting names of the addressee, in the following form:

"WHEREAS I, Brendan Clifford Condie a Justice of the Peace in the State of New South Wales within the meaning of that expression in Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914, being satisfied by information on oath placed before me this day that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there is in or upon the premises occupied by Esso Australia Limited and being the premises situated and known as 127-153 Kent Street, Millers Point, Sydney in the said State and described as being an eighteen storey brown building including all rooms, offices, storage areas, store rooms, safes, garbage areas, garbage containers; certain THINGS that satisfy ALL of the three following conditions, that is to say, THINGS which FIRSTLY are any one or more of the following:

FIRST CONDITION:

THINGS being the original or copies of: Internal and external memoranda, Incoming/outgoing correspondence, Diaries,

Diary notes,

Records

Notes,

Letters,

Files,

File or index cards

Lettergrams,

Telexes,

Telegrams,

Facsimile copies,

Personal records,

Maintenance records,

Minutes of Director's Meetings,

Staff employment records,

Staff employment contracts,

Manuals,

Reports,

Brochures,

Telephone Directories,

Teledexes,

Telephone Answering Machines,

Typewriters,

Typewriter Ribbons and or Cassettes, Photocopy Machines,

Including any of the things named above on magnetic and/or other storage medium.

SECOND CONDITION

AND which SECONDLY relate to any one…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Esso Australia Ltd v Curran, C.J and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] FCA 39
Decision Date: 17 FEBRUARY 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Esso Australia Limited brought an action against Curran, seeking to challenge the legality of a search warrant executed at their premises. The dispute centred on the validity of the search warrant issued under section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 and the subsequent detention of items seized during the search. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of "information" within section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914, specifically the degree of specificity required in stating the suspected offences in a search warrant. Additionally, the court had to determine the effect of section 5 of the Crimes Act 1914 on the validity of the warrant and the lawfulness of continued detention of items seized which did not match the description in the warrant.

The court found that the term "information" in section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 required a level of specificity that allowed a person of ordinary intelligence to understand the grounds for the warrant. The court concluded that where the commission of the stated offence was legally impossible, the warrant was invalid. The court also held that section 5 of the Crimes Act 1914 did not render the warrant valid if it was otherwise invalid, and that the continued detention of items seized which did not satisfy the description in the warrant was unlawful.

The court ordered the return of the items seized to Esso Australia Limited, as the warrant was invalid and the continued detention of the items unlawful. The decision underscored the importance of the specificity requirement in search warrants and the limitations on the continued detention of seized items.

Orders