Justices (Q.)—Search warrant—Issue—Requirements—Reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief—Whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief—Facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief—Sworn complaint—Relevance of statements otherwise than on oath—The Criminal Code (Q.), s. 679.
Decision
MASON C.J., BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ. On 22 August 1989 the first respondent, Detective Sergeant Rockett, attended at the office of the second respondent, a stipendiary magistrate, and applied for the issue of a search warrant under the provisions of s.679(b) of The Criminal Code (Q.). Section 679 reads as follows:
" If it appears to a justice, on complaint made on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is in any house, vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or place - (a) Anything with respect to which any offence which is such that the offender may be arrested with or without warrant has been, or is suspected, on reasonable grounds, to have been, committed; or
(b) Anything whether animate or inanimate and whether living or dead as to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will of itself or by or on scientific examination, afford evidence as to the commission of any offence; or
(c) Anything as to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any such offence;
he may issue his warrant directing a police officer or police officers named therein or all police officers to enter, by force if necessary, and to search such house, vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or place, and to seize any such thing if found, and to take it before a justice to be dealt with according to law. Any such warrant is to be executed by day unless the justice, by the warrant, specially authorises it to be executed by night, in which case it may be so executed. Where it appears on the complaint that an offence involving the safety of an aircraft has been is being or may be committed on board or in relation to the aircraft the justice may direct in his warrant that any person on board the aircraft or any person who is about to board the aircraft may be searched."
2. Detective Sergeant Rockett placed before the magistrate a statutory declaration relating to the existence of some documents allegedly in the handwriting of Sir Terence Lewis, a former Commissioner of Police, against whom two charges of perjury were pending. In addition to the statutory declaration, a form of complaint to ground the issue of a search warrant and a pro forma of a search warrant were produced to the magistrate. The magistrate asked Rockett some questions about the matter and these questions were answered. Then Rockett swore the complaint before the magistrate. The sworn complaint read as follows:
"COMPLAINT TO GROUND SEARCH WARRANT
The Complaint of Michael Daniel ROCKETT…
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 George v Rockett
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26
Case
[1990] HCA 26
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *George v Rockett*. The case concerned a prosecution for the unlawful possession of a prohibited substance, specifically cannabis, under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (SA). The appellant, George, was found to be in possession of cannabis, and the central dispute revolved around whether he had knowledge of its presence.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution was required to prove that the appellant had actual knowledge of the presence of the prohibited substance, or whether constructive knowledge or a lack of reasonable belief to the contrary was sufficient. This question arose in the context of the statutory offence, which did not explicitly define the mental element required for possession.
The Court held that the offence of possession under the *Misuse of Drugs Act 1981* (SA) required proof of knowledge of the existence of the prohibited substance. However, this knowledge could be established by inference from the surrounding circumstances. The Court rejected the argument that the prosecution needed to prove actual knowledge, finding that it was sufficient to prove that the accused knew of the existence of the substance or was wilfully blind to its existence. The principle applied was that possession requires a physical control coupled with an intention to exercise that control, and this intention is predicated on knowledge of what is being controlled.
The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the conviction.