Van Beelen v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Van Beelen against his conviction for murder. The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search of his property, which was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the *Criminal Investigation Act 2017* (SA). The central dispute revolved around whether the warrant was validly issued, and consequently, whether the evidence seized was admissible at trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the issuing officer had reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to an indictable offence would be found on the premises to be searched, as required by section 71(1) of the *Criminal Investigation Act 2017* (SA). This involved an examination of the information presented to the issuing officer and whether that information, viewed objectively, supported the belief that the search would yield evidence of a crime. A further issue was whether, if the warrant was invalid, the evidence obtained should have been excluded under section 78 of the Act, which provides for the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The Court reasoned that the issuing officer's belief must be based on reasonable grounds, meaning that a reasonable person in the position of the issuing officer, having regard to the information before them, would have formed the belief. The Court found that the information provided to the issuing officer was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing that evidence of a crime would be found at Mr Van Beelen's property. Consequently, the warrant was invalidly issued. The Court then considered the admissibility of the evidence under section 78 of the Act, applying the principles that the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence is the default position unless the court is satisfied that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been improperly obtained.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court of South Australia for a retrial.