Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) authorized a magistrate or justice of the peace to grant a search warrant authorizing a named constable to enter "the premises, aircraft, vehicle, vessel or place named or described in the warrant" and to seize "(a) anything with respect to which any offence against any law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory has been, or is suspected on reasonable grounds to have been, committed; (b) anything as to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it will afford evidence as to the commission of any such offence; or (c) anything as to which there is reasonable ground for believing that it is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any such offence..."

Held by Mason C.J., Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ., Brennan and McHugh JJ. dissenting, that s. 10 bound the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and of a State. A warrant could be granted authorizing the search of a State government department and the seizure of documents connected with the investigation of Commonwealth offences, subject to public interest immunity.

Bropho v. Western Australia (1990), 171 CLR 1, applied.

Per Brennan J. There was nothing in the text of S. 10 or in the nature of the powers it conferred that warranted an implication exempting State premises from the places in which those powers might be exercised or State documents from the things which might be seized.

Decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) reversed.

Hearing

CANBERRA, 1994, April 19, 20; SYDNEY, 1995, February 17
#DATE 17:2:1995

APPEAL from the Federal Court of Australia.

On 12 February 1992 a stipendiary magistrate for the State of Western Australia issued two search warrants authorizing two members of the Australian Federal Police Force, Johannes Jacobsen and Terence Dibb, to enter premises occupied by the Department of Fisheries of the State of Western Australia and to seize specified categories of documents. Peter Rogers, the Director of Fisheries for Western Australia, applied to the Federal Court for a declaration that the warrants were invalid and an injunction restraining the policemen from acting upon them. He also applied for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) of the decision of the magistrate to issue the warrants. French J. held that the warrants were authorized by s. 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and dismissed the applications. The Director appealed to a Full Court of the Federal Court (Black CJ, Shepherd and Lee JJ.) which allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the magistrate to issue the warrants and declared them invalid. The policemen appealed to the High Court by special leave.

E. M. Heenan QC (with…

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 Jacobsen v Rogers

Details

AGLC: Jacobsen v Rogers [1995] HCA 6
Case: [1995] HCA 6
Decision Date: 17 February 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Jacobsen v Rogers*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Jacobsen, and the respondent, Rogers. The case concerned the interpretation and application of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)), specifically in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). This involved determining whether the respondent's representations about the appellant's business were false or likely to create a false impression in the minds of consumers.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the objective test for misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court held that the relevant question was not whether the respondent intended to mislead, but whether the conduct, viewed objectively, had the capacity to mislead a significant number of ordinary members of the class of persons to whom it was directed. The Court examined the precise wording of the representations made by the respondent and considered the context in which they were communicated to determine their likely effect on the target audience. The principles applied underscored the broad protective purpose of section 52, which aims to prevent consumers from being misled by commercial conduct.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's conduct had contravened section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). The Court remitted the matter to the Federal Court of Australia for further consideration of the appropriate remedies.

Orders