Huynh v The Queen; Duong v The Queen; Sem v The Queen

These three appeals, heard together, concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during a search of a vehicle. The applicants, Huynh, Duong, and Sem, were convicted of drug trafficking offences in the District Court of New South Wales. Their appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales were dismissed. The applicants then appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the search of the vehicle, which was conducted without a warrant, was admissible. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the police officers had reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle contained prohibited drugs, as required by section 36 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) for a warrantless search.

The High Court held that the police officers did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of prohibited drugs in the vehicle. The Court reasoned that the information available to the officers at the time of the search was insufficient to form a reasonable suspicion. This included observations of the applicants' behaviour, which were equivocal and could be attributed to innocent reasons, and the fact that the vehicle had been observed in an area known for drug activity, which was also not sufficient on its own. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *R v Rondo* and *George v Rockdale City Council*, emphasizing that a suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot be a mere hunch or guess.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and remitted the matters to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales to determine whether the convictions should be upheld without the improperly admitted evidence.