R -v- SORENSEN [2013] WASC 135
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASC 135 | |
| Case No: | INS:45/2013 | 12 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | HALL J | 18/04/13 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
PETER JOHN SORENSEN
Accused
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant - Federal search warrant - Section 3E Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - Whether warrant valid - Whether warrant issued on basis of information on oath - Whether affidavit of applicant met formal requirements - Whether error in date of suspected offence was a material error
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3, s 3C, s 3E, s 3F
Oaths, Affidavits & Statutory Declarations Act 2005 (WA), s 9, s 16
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr D W L Renton
Accused : Ms H E Prince
Solicitors:
Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Accused : Esplanade Legal
Case(s)…
Continue reading R v Sorensen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Sorensen [2013] WASC 135
- Case
- [2013] WASC 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Sorensen involved a criminal proceeding where the defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained through a federal search warrant. The defendant argued that the warrant was invalid, raising concerns about the basis on which it was issued and the sufficiency of the information provided in the supporting affidavit. The court was required to determine whether the warrant was properly issued in accordance with section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), particularly focusing on whether the warrant was issued on the basis of information provided on oath and if the affidavit met the formal requirements set out in the legislation.
The legal issues central to the case included whether the magistrate who issued the warrant did so on the basis of information provided under oath and whether the information in the applicant's affidavit satisfied the formal requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the error regarding the date of the suspected offence was a material one that could invalidate the warrant. The defendant contended that the error in the date meant that the information provided to the magistrate was insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant.
The court found that the warrant was validly issued as it was based on information provided under oath. The magistrate had correctly considered the information provided in the affidavit, and any minor errors, such as the incorrect date of the suspected offence, did not render the warrant invalid. The court concluded that the formal requirements of section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) were met, and the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant would not be excluded. Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.
The legal issues central to the case included whether the magistrate who issued the warrant did so on the basis of information provided under oath and whether the information in the applicant's affidavit satisfied the formal requirements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the error regarding the date of the suspected offence was a material one that could invalidate the warrant. The defendant contended that the error in the date meant that the information provided to the magistrate was insufficient to support the issuance of the warrant.
The court found that the warrant was validly issued as it was based on information provided under oath. The magistrate had correctly considered the information provided in the affidavit, and any minor errors, such as the incorrect date of the suspected offence, did not render the warrant invalid. The court concluded that the formal requirements of section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) were met, and the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant would not be excluded. Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.