Re: LEMESK PTY. LTD.; RICHARD ALISTAIR BERNAYS; IAN ALEXANDER BROWN and
RICHARD ERNEST CLARKE
And: LESLIE GRAHAM EASTERBY; DONALD MAX BAILEY; DEON MICHAEL GATTY and OTHERS
No. G44 of 1992
FED No. 293
Number of pages - 18
Search Warrant
(1993) 66 A Crim R 337
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Cooper J(1)
CATCHWORDS
Search Warrant - validity - grant - requirements - reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief - facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief - information on oath - whether matters specified in warrant with sufficient particularity - degree of particularity required - locus standi - declaratory relief.
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) Sections 10, 29B and 29D
R V. Tillett; Ex parte Newton (1969) 14 FLR 101
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. Cloran (1984) 4 FCR 151
Beneficial Finance Corporation v. Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1991) 31 FCR 523
Esso Australia Ltd. v. Curran (1989) 39 A Crim R 157
Bartlett v. Weir and Ors (Unreported: TG7 of 1992, Hobart, 17 February, 1993)
Freeman v. Roberts (Unreported, VG188 of 1990, Melbourne, 19 August, 1992)
El-Zarw v. Nikola Ex parte El-Zarw (1992) 1 QB R 145
HEARING
BRISBANE, 2, 22-23 April 1992
#DATE 10:5:1993
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. R.A. Mulholland QC and
Mr. D.K. Boddice
Solicitors for the Applicant: Gilshenan and Luton
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P. Flanagan
Solicitors for the Respondents: Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions
ORDER
The Court declares:
1. That the warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter the premises of the first applicant situate at 40 William Street, Southport in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondents, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
2. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from the premises of the first applicant situated at 40 William Street, Southport in the State of Queensland, were unlawfully seized.
3. That the warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter the premises at 66 Howard Street, Nambour in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondent, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
4. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from premises situated at 66 Howard Street, Nambour in the State of Queensland…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lemesk PL v Bernays, R.A and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1993] FCA 293
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the search warrants were validly issued and executed, and if the warrants were invalid, whether the seizures were lawful. The court had to consider the requirements for a search warrant to be valid, including whether the magistrate had reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief that an offence had been committed, and whether the matters specified in the warrant were described with sufficient particularity. The court also had to consider whether the applicants had standing to bring the proceedings.
The court found that the warrants were invalid because they did not contain sufficient particularity to describe the matters to be seized. The warrants were too broad and did not specify the documents or things to be seized with enough detail. The court also found that the warrants were not supported by reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief that an offence had been committed. The court held that the seizures were unlawful and ordered the return of the seized documents and things. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the application.
The court declared that the warrants were invalid and unlawfully executed and ordered the return of the seized documents and things. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the application. The orders were made pursuant to Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court declares:
1. That the warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter the premises of the first applicant situate at 40 William Street, Southport in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondents, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
2. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from the premises of the first applicant situated at 40 William Street, Southport in the State of Queensland, were unlawfully seized.
3. That the warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter the premises at 66 Howard Street, Nambour in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondent, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
4. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from premises situated at 66 Howard Street, Nambour in the State of Queensland were unlawfully seized.
5. That the warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter premises situated at 18 Longboat Place, Bayview Anchorage in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondents, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
6. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from premises situated at 18 Longboat Place, Bayview Anchorage in the State of Queensland were unlawfully seized.
7. That a warrant issued on 20 January, 1992 directed to the respondents authorising them to enter premises situated at 288 Edward Street, Brisbane in the State of Queensland and to seize documents and things therein referred to:-
(a) was invalid;
(b) was unlawfully executed by the respondents, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
8. That the documents and things seized by the respondents, their servants or agents on or about 21 January, 1992 from the premises situated at 288 Edward Street, Brisbane in the State of Queensland were unlawfully seized.
The court orders:
1. That the respondents forthwith return to the first applicant:-
(a) All and any documents and things removed from the premises at 40 William Street, Southport in the State of Queensland by them, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992.
(b) All and any copies of such documents and things since made by them as servants or agents.
2. The respondents forthwith return to the premises situate at 66 Howard Street, Nambour in the State of Queensland:-
(a) All and any documents and things removed therefrom by them, their servants or agents on 21 January, 1992;
(b) All and any copies of any such documents and things since made by them, their servants or agents.
3. That the respondents pay the first and second applicants costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs if any, to be taxed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.