Legal Research
Cases
Majzoub v Kepreotis

Majzoub v Kepreotis

Case [2009] NSWSC 1498 24 April 2009

Jurisdiction

Bad Faith

Recklessness

Admissibility of Evidence

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: MAJZOUB v KEPREOTIS [2009] NSWSC 1498

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 12 March 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 April 2009

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: The relief sought in the Amended Summons filed on 12 March 2009 is refused.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Search Warrants Act 1985

CASES CITED: ACS v Anderson [1975] 1 NSWLR 212
Anderson v Attorney General (NSW) [1987] 10 NSWLR 198
Ballis v Randall [2007] NSWSC 422
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Buck v Barone (1976) 135 CLR 110
Cain v Glass (No 2) [1985] 3 NSWLR 230
Carmody v MacKellar (1997) 148 ALR 210
Carroll v Attorney General (NSW) (1993) 70 A Crim R 162
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Jiang (2001) 183 ALR 604
Commissioner of Police v Atkinson [1991] 23 NSWLR 495
Connell v Miller (NSWSC, Latham J, 12 February 2007, unreported)
Conwell v Tapfield [1981] 1 NSWLR 595
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Crewdson v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 178
Dunn v The Australian Crime Commission [2009] FCAFC 16
Firearm Distributors Pty Ltd v Carson [2001] 2 Qd R 26
Flanagan v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (1996) 60 FCR 149
Gedeon v Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; (2008) 249 ALR 398
Gibbons v Evans [2008] NSWSC 495
Hallahan v Campbell; ex parte Campbell (No 2) [1964] Qd R 337
Holmswood Holdings Pty Ltd v Halkat Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1129
Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paraggio (1994) 52 FCR 542
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v NAOS of 2002 [2003] FCAFC 142
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431
NAAG of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 713
NAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 805
NAAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228
NAKF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 199 ALR 412
NASB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 24
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66
Puglisi v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (1997) 148 ALR 393
R v Bolton; Ex parte Scally [1991] 2 WLR 239
R v Deland; Ex parte Willie (1996) 6 NTLR 72
R v Elliott (1996) 185 CLR 250
R v Iorlano (1983) 151 CLR 678
SBAP v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] FCA 590
SBAU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1076
SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 361
SCAZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1377
Seymour v Attorney-General (Cth) (1984)…

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 Majzoub v Kepreotis

Details

AGLC: Majzoub v Kepreotis [2009] NSWSC 1498
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1498
Decision Date: 24 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Majzoub v Kepreotis, the plaintiff sought relief in respect of a search warrant issued under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPR Act). The plaintiff claimed that the warrant was invalid and sought orders for the warrant to be set aside, for the return of seized property, and for the destruction of certain items. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claims were without merit. The central issue was whether the warrant was issued based on false or misleading information provided by Constable McKinley, the police officer who applied for the warrant.

The court examined the application for the warrant and the evidence provided by Constable McKinley and other officers. The court found that while there were some inaccuracies in the description of events, they were not significant enough to vitiate the warrant. The court held that the principles of bad faith and fraud in public law require clear proof of dishonesty and impropriety, which was not established in this case. The court concluded that Constable McKinley's conduct, even if reckless, did not amount to bad faith.

Accordingly, the relief sought by the plaintiff was refused. The court dismissed the Amended Summons on the grounds of bad faith/fraud.

Orders