Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition by Mr. Beane against Mr. Bolton, a magistrate. The dispute concerned the validity of a search warrant issued by the magistrate, which Mr. Beane contended was invalid.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the search warrant, which authorised the search of premises for "any documents or other things which may afford evidence of the commission of an offence", was sufficiently particular to satisfy the requirements of section 32 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW). This involved determining the scope of the particularity required for search warrants under that legislation and its relationship with the common law.

The Court held that the warrant was invalid for lacking sufficient particularity. Mason C.J. and Wilson J. found that the description of the items to be seized was too general and did not specify the nature of the suspected offence or the particular documents sought. Brennan J. agreed, emphasizing that a warrant must specify the offence to which the evidence relates. Deane and Dawson JJ. also concluded that the warrant was too broad, failing to particularise the evidence or the offence. Toohey and Gaudron JJ. dissented, finding the warrant to be valid.

The High Court made orders absolute for the writ of prohibition, quashing the search warrant.