Robertson v The Queen; Knight v The Queen; Williams v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during searches conducted under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) s 3L. The applicants, Robertson, Knight, and Williams, were convicted of various offences, including drug trafficking and possession of prohibited firearms. The central dispute revolved around whether the searches conducted by police, which led to the discovery of the evidence used to convict them, were lawful under s 3L. The appeals were heard by Kiefel and Bell JJ in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the interpretation of s 3L of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), specifically whether a police officer could lawfully search a person under that provision without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the person had committed or was about to commit a federal offence. The applicants argued that the searches were unlawful because the police lacked the requisite suspicion, rendering the evidence obtained inadmissible.

Kiefel and Bell JJ held that s 3L of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) does not require a police officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or is about to commit a federal offence before conducting a search under that provision. Their Honours reasoned that the language of s 3L, when read as a whole, confers a broad power on police officers to search individuals in certain circumstances, and that the absence of an express requirement for suspicion meant that such a suspicion was not a prerequisite for a lawful search. Consequently, the searches conducted in these cases were found to be lawful.

The appeals were dismissed.