Legal Research
Cases
Harland v Murphy

Harland v Murphy

Case [2022] NSWSC 1376 12 October 2022

Reasonable Grounds

Judicial Review

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Harland v Murphy [2022] NSWSC 1376
Hearing dates: 3, 22 March, 26-27 April 2022
Date of orders: 12 October 2022
Decision date: 12 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) Grant an extension of time to the plaintiff to commence proceedings under r 59.10(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.
(2) Declare that search warrant number 81 of 2019 issued on 8 April 2019 at Blacktown Local Court is invalid.
(3) The decision by Adele Andrews, Registrar at Blacktown Local Court, to issue search warrant number 81 of 2019 on 8 April 2019 is quashed.
(4) The first defendant is to pay to the plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings on an ordinary basis.

Catchwords:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – police powers – search warrant – whether invalid – where police attended plaintiff’s residence in response to his triple-0 calls of threatened violence by neighbour – police shown notes on computer – APVO application made by plaintiff – search warrant executed on plaintiff’s premises to seize computer and hardware – searchable offence nominated as Crimes Act s 314 – whether applicant had reasonable grounds under LEPRA s 47 – whether Local Court Registrar had reasonable grounds under LEPRA s 48 – other particulars of invalidity under LEPRA s 62(3) – where Registrar appeared to indicate less than one minute spent considering search warrant application – applicant did not have reasonable grounds – search warrant declared invalid and its issue quashed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 314, 319, 326, 547B
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 49A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 179
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138
Law Enforcement (Police Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), Pt 5
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69, 75
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 59.10

Cases Cited:
Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; [1983] HCA 39
Beneficial Finance Corporation v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1991) 31 FCR 523; [1991] FCA 92
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2017] FCAFC 177
Carrol & Ors v Mijoivch & Ors (1991) 25 NSWLR 441
Corbett & Anor v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 138
Doyle v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCA 11; 285 A Crim R 349
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26
Lee v NSW Commissioner of Police (No.3) [2019] NSWSC 694
Neeta (Epping) Pty Ltd v Phillips (1974) 131 CLR 286
Parker v Churchill (1985) 9 FCR 316
Polley v Johnson [2015] NSWCA 256
Rohozynsky v Holder & ors. [2005] NSWSC 868
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (Cth) [2020] HCA 14
State of New South Wales v Corbett (2017) 230 CLR 606; [2007] HCA 32
Vincent v Randall & Anor [1999] NSWSC 833

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gregory…

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 Harland v Murphy

Details

AGLC: Harland v Murphy [2022] NSWSC 1376
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1376
Decision Date: 12 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Harland v Murphy, the respondent sought a declaration that a police search warrant issued under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) was invalid. The dispute arose after the applicant contacted emergency services, reporting that his neighbour threatened him with violence. The police attended the applicant's residence and viewed notes on his computer, which appeared to document the threats. A search and seizure warrant was subsequently executed to confiscate the computer and related hardware. The applicant applied for a declaration that the warrant was invalid, arguing that it was issued without reasonable grounds, contrary to section 47 of the LEPRA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had reasonable grounds to apply for the search warrant under section 47 of the LEPRA, and whether the Local Court Registrar had reasonable grounds to approve the warrant under section 48. Additionally, the court considered whether the warrant was invalid under section 62(3) of the LEPRA due to other particulars of invalidity. The applicant contended that the Registrar appeared to have spent less than one minute considering the application, which was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found that the applicant did not have reasonable grounds to apply for the warrant, as the notes on the computer did not provide sufficient evidence of a crime. The court also concluded that the Registrar did not have reasonable grounds to approve the warrant, as the application was inadequately supported by evidence. Furthermore, the court determined that the warrant was invalid under section 62(3) due to other particulars of invalidity, specifically the insufficient time spent by the Registrar on the application. Consequently, the court declared the warrant invalid and quashed its issue.

Orders