Ul-Haque v The Queen & Anor

The applicants, Ul-Haque and another, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the validity of a search warrant issued under the *Drugs Misuse Act 1986* (Qld) and the admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant. The applicants contended that the warrant was invalid because it was not supported by sufficient grounds, and that the evidence seized should have been excluded under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) as it was obtained improperly.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Supreme Court of Queensland erred in upholding the validity of the search warrant. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the information provided to the issuing Justice of the Peace established reasonable grounds for believing that the premises to be searched were being used for unlawful drug activity. Furthermore, the Court was asked to consider whether, even if the warrant were found to be defective, the evidence obtained should have been admitted in the subsequent criminal proceedings, applying the principles of fairness and the public interest under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth).

The High Court granted special leave to appeal and, in its joint judgment, found that the information before the Justice of the Peace did not establish reasonable grounds for the belief required by the *Drugs Misuse Act 1986* (Qld). Their Honours observed that the information was vague and speculative, lacking the specificity necessary to justify the intrusion of a search warrant. Consequently, the warrant was held to be invalid. The Court then considered the admissibility of the evidence under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), noting that the evidence was obtained improperly due to the invalid warrant. Applying the balancing exercise required by s 138, the Court concluded that the impropriety of the search outweighed the probative value of the evidence and the public interest in its admission.

The High Court ordered that special leave to appeal be granted, that the appeal be allowed, and that the convictions be quashed.