R v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition by Mr. Green against Mr. Ross-Jones, a magistrate. The dispute concerned the validity of a search warrant issued by Mr. Ross-Jones, which authorised police to search premises at 140 Arthur Street, North Sydney, for evidence of the offence of conspiracy to defraud. Mr. Green sought to prohibit the use of evidence obtained under this warrant in proceedings against him.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the search warrant was validly issued. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the information laid before the magistrate was sufficient to satisfy him that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the offence of conspiracy to defraud had been, or was likely to be, committed and that evidence of that offence would be found at the premises to be searched.

The Court held that the information laid before the magistrate was insufficient to justify the issue of the search warrant. The information merely stated that the applicant was suspected of conspiracy to defraud and that evidence of this offence was likely to be found at the premises. This lacked the particularity required by the relevant legislation, which necessitates that the informant must swear to or affirm that they have reasonable grounds for believing that the offence has been committed and that evidence of it will be found. The Court emphasised that a magistrate must be satisfied of these matters on the basis of sworn information, not mere suspicion or belief.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, quashing the search warrant and prohibiting the use of any evidence obtained pursuant to it.