Karim v The Queen; Magaming v The Queen; Bin Lahaiya v The Queen; Bayu v The Queen; Alomalu v The Queen (No 2)

The four appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences under the Commonwealth’s Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cth). The appeals related to the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by the Australian Federal Police through the use of a device that intercepted communications over the internet. The High Court heard the appeals on the basis that there was a question of law of general public importance, but ultimately concluded that there was no such question. The respondents were represented by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, who was assisted by counsel.

The appellants challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the interception was unlawful under the Australian Constitution. They contended that the interception amounted to an “interference with privacy” as that term is used in section 117 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of communication. The appellants also argued that the interception was not authorised by law, and that the use of the interception device did not comply with the requirements of section 8 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The High Court was required to consider whether the interception amounted to an interference with privacy, and if so, whether it was authorised by law.

The High Court held that the interception of the appellants’ communications did not amount to an interference with privacy for the purposes of section 117 of the Australian Constitution. The Court held that the interception was authorised by law under section 11AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which provides for the use of interception devices in the investigation of serious indictable offences. The Court also held that the use of the interception device did not contravene the requirements of section 8 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), as the device was authorised by law and the interception was carried out in accordance with a warrant issued by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

The High Court dismissed the appeals, and affirmed the convictions of the appellants. The Court held that the evidence obtained through the interception of the appellants’ communications was properly admitted at trial, and that the appellants’ convictions were not affected by any alleged unlawfulness in the obtaining of that evidence. The Court also held that there was no question of law of general public importance, and that the appeals should be dismissed. The appellants’ convictions were therefore upheld.