Jacobsen & Anor v Rogers

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicants, Johannes Jacobsen and another, were represented by Mr E.M. Heenan, QC, and Mr H.D. Seymour. The respondent was represented by the Solicitor-General for Western Australia, Mr K.H. Parker, QC, and Mr R.E. Cock.

The core legal issues before the Court were twofold. Firstly, whether section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) was intended to grant authority for the forcible entry of premises belonging to the Crown, in any of its capacities, and the seizure of Crown records. Secondly, the Court was asked to consider whether this intention differed in relation to premises and records of a State compared to those of the Commonwealth. The records in question were held in premises owned and occupied by the State of Western Australia's Fisheries Department, and comprised returns from fishermen provided under statutory compulsion for the purposes of ordinary public administration.

The respondent argued that section 10 of the Crimes Act is a provision designed to aid criminal investigation rather than create offences. It was submitted that in its original form, the section authorised a justice to issue a warrant for forcible entry, search, and seizure, but was not expressed to bind the Crown. The Court was referred to the decision in *Bropho* which had considered the reach of the rule of construction established in *Province of South Australia v The Commonwealth*. Furthermore, it was argued that the law regarding the treatment of Commonwealth and State Crowns in the absence of express provision was settled by *Minister for Works v Gulson* and affirmed in *Bradken v BHP*, establishing an identical presumption of legislative intention not to bind the Crown.