Middlin-Hannah v The Queen

The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone, seized by police during an investigation into drug importation. The appellant, Mr Middlin-Hannah, was suspected of importing MDMA, and police, acting under a general search warrant, searched his home and subsequently his car. While no MDMA was found, cocaine and cash were seized. Police then requested Mr Middlin-Hannah's mobile phone, which was locked, and he was informed that it would be seized if incriminating evidence was found. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the mobile phone was lawfully seized and whether the subsequent request for the phone's PIN and the adducing of evidence from the phone constituted forensic unfairness. The court was required to consider the scope of police powers to search and seize property under the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA), particularly in relation to the seizure of electronic devices and the implications of the "accusatory stage" of an investigation on the admissibility of evidence.

The court reasoned that the seizure of the mobile phone was authorised by section 67 of the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA), which permits the seizure of property suspected of being evidence of an offence. The judges found that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect the phone contained evidence of drug trafficking, given the information received from an informant and the appellant's prior convictions and admissions relating to drug offences. The court also determined that there was no forensic unfairness in the process of obtaining the PIN and accessing the phone's contents, as the appellant was informed of the potential seizure and the opportunity to have the phone returned if no incriminating material was found. The court distinguished the situation from circumstances requiring a caution under the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA), finding that the interaction had not yet reached the stage of a formal interview.

The appeal was dismissed. The court concluded that the mobile phone was lawfully seized and that the evidence derived from it was admissible.