Pressler, C.R. v Holzberger, L.M. - [1989] FCA 446

Re: CRAIG ROBERT PRESSLER; JOHN FREDERICK PRESSLER; PAMELA DEANNA PRESSLER;
C.R. PRESSLER PTY. LTD; ENGREEN PTY. LTD.; PRESSLER PROPERTIES PTY. LTD.; 2PH
IRRIGATIONS PTY. LTD. and TOTAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM PTY. LTD.
And: LANCE MICHAEL HOLZBERGER; LEANNE OLGA CARNEY; DESMOND JOHN LEWIS;
GEOFFREY LEONARD GREENSLADE; GARY EDWARD DONALD WYNCH; KERRY ARTHUR JONES and
PAUL GERARD MURRAY
No. QLD G53 of 1989
FED No. 446
Criminal Law and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Spender J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law and Procedure - validity of search warrants - whether informations provided reasonable grounds for belief that offences committed - whether warrants sufficiently particularized offences to reveal object of the searches.

Criminal Law and Procedure - Documents unlawfully seized - discretion whether to order return of documents - relevant considerations - doctrine of due process.

Crimes Act (Cth.) - s. 10

Judiciary Act (Cth.) - s. 39B(1)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth.) - s. 22

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 4:8:1989

Counsel for applicant: Ms. S. Kiefel Q.C. with Mr. M. Taylor instructed by: McRea Jones as town agents for Boreham, Hancock & Andrews

Counsel for respondent: Mr. G. Rice instructed by: The Director of Public Prosecutions

ORDER

The warrants executed by the first six respondents are invalid.

All searches conducted in pursuance of those warrants were unlawful.

Each of the first six respondents deliver forthwith to the applicants all documents, and all copies thereof, seized as a result of the searches conducted pursuant to the warrants.

The first six respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to this application, to be taxed if not agreed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an amended application for, inter alia, a declaration that warrants executed by the first six respondents on 5 April 1989 which had been issued shortly prior to that date are invalid and the searches conducted under the said warrants were unlawful. The applicants also seek an injunction requiring the respondents to forthwith deliver up to the applicants all documents and any copies thereof that were seized pursuant to the warrants.

On the hearing of the application I made orders granting that relief and ordered the first six respondents to pay the costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. I indicated that I would later give my reasons for those orders. These are those reasons.
There are a number of search warrants in question which differ only in relation to the location of the property to be searched.
Section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) provides:-

"If a Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there is in any house, vessel, or place -

(a) anything with respect to which any offence against any law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory has been, or is suspected on reasonable grounds to have been, committed;

(b) anything…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pressler, C.R. v Holzberger, L.M. 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] FCA 446
Decision Date: 04 AUGUST 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pressler, C.R. v Holzberger, L.M., the Federal Court was tasked with examining the validity of several search warrants executed by various respondents. The applicants, Pressler and others, sought a declaration that the warrants were invalid and that the searches conducted under them were unlawful. They further sought an order for the return of all documents seized during these searches and an award of costs. The respondents, who executed the warrants, contested the validity of the warrants and the lawfulness of the searches.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the information provided to the issuing authorities was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for belief that offences had been committed and whether the warrants were sufficiently particularised to specify the objects of the searches. The applicants argued that the warrants did not meet the necessary standards as they were based on insufficient information and lacked specificity. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the warrants were valid and properly executed.

The court found in favour of the applicants, concluding that the warrants were invalid due to the insufficient information provided to the issuing authorities and the lack of specificity in the warrants. The court determined that the information did not establish reasonable grounds for belief that offences had been committed, and the warrants were not sufficiently particularised to reveal the objects of the searches. Consequently, all searches conducted under these warrants were deemed unlawful. The court ordered that the respondents must return all documents seized during the searches and pay the applicants' costs.

As a result of the court's decision, the warrants executed by the first six respondents were declared invalid, and all searches conducted under those warrants were ruled unlawful. The respondents were directed to return all documents seized during the searches to the applicants. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The warrants executed by the first six respondents are invalid.

All searches conducted in pursuance of those warrants were unlawful.

Each of the first six respondents deliver forthwith to the applicants all documents, and all copies thereof, seized as a result of the searches conducted pursuant to the warrants.

The first six respondents pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to this application, to be taxed if not agreed.

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.