Strickland (A Pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Tucker (A Pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors; Hodges (A Pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public...

Bell, Keane and Edelman JJ of the Full Federal Court considered appeals by three applicants, Strickland, Tucker and Hodges, against decisions of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicants sought to challenge the validity of search warrants issued under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) (POCA). The core of the dispute concerned whether the issuing officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicants had committed, or were about to commit, a serious wealth offence, which is a prerequisite for the issuance of such warrants under s 153(1)(a) of the POCA.

The primary legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the issuing officer, when considering the information presented to them, had a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had engaged in, or were about to engage in, conduct that constituted a serious wealth offence. This required the Court to examine the nature of the information available to the issuing officer and whether it was sufficient to form a reasonable suspicion, as defined by the POCA and relevant case law, that the applicants were involved in the specified criminal activity.

The Court reasoned that a reasonable suspicion requires more than a mere possibility or a hunch; it must be based on grounds that are reasonable and not fanciful. The issuing officer must have a state of mind that is not merely a possibility but a real chance or likelihood. In this instance, the Court found that the information before the issuing officer did not establish a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed or were about to commit a serious wealth offence. Consequently, the warrants were vitiated by a lack of reasonable grounds, and the appeals were allowed.