Kelly v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Kelly against the Crown. The dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search of the appellant's property. The core of the matter revolved around whether the search warrant used to seize the evidence was validly issued.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the search warrant, which authorised the search of "any property of the appellant", was sufficiently particular to satisfy the requirements of the common law and any relevant statutory provisions governing search warrants. This question necessitated an examination of the principles of specificity required for warrants to be considered lawful.

The Court reasoned that a search warrant must describe with sufficient particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized to prevent arbitrary or general searches. A warrant that is overly broad, such as one authorising the search of "any property", fails to provide adequate limitations on the executing officer's powers and therefore infringes upon fundamental common law rights. The High Court held that the warrant in this instance was invalid due to its lack of particularity. Consequently, the evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant was inadmissible.