Vincent v Randall - [1999] NSWSC 833

CITATION: Vincent v Randall & Anor [1999] NSWSC 833

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Administrative Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 30085 of 1997

HEARING DATE(S): 22/09/98; 23/09/98

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 August 1999

PARTIES :

Susan Margaret Vincent (plaintiff)
M. Randall, Authorised Justice (1st defendant)
Steven Robert Campbell (2nd defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : S. Friend (solicitor for plaintiff)
K. M. Guilfoyle (2nd defendant)

SOLICITORS: Friend & Hazard (plaintiff)
I.V. Knight/ Crown Solicitor (2nd defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Administrative Law - search warrant - false information provided to authorising justice - whether other information provided reasonable grounds for issue of warrant.

ACTS CITED: Search Warrants Act 1985

CASES CITED: George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
Jason v Mijovich (NSWSC, Finlay J, unreported, 22 March 1991)
Parker v Churchill (1985) 9 FCR 316
Patten v Justice of the Peace, Redfern Court (1996) 22 ACrim R 94

DECISION: Summons dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
HIDDEN J
19 August 1999

No 30085 of 1997 Susan Margaret Vincent v M Randall & Anor
Reasons for judgment

1     HIS HONOUR: In the evening of 7 August 1996 police executed a search warrant at a home in Waterloo occupied by the plaintiff, Susan Margaret Vincent, her husband, Colin Vincent and their two children. The first defendant is the justice who issued the warrant and the second defendant, Senior Constable Steven Campbell, is the police officer who applied for it and who, with other police, executed it. By summons in this Court, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the warrant was invalid and an order that it be set aside.
2     I received evidence, both by way of affidavit and orally, about the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the warrant and the events of the evening in which the search was carried out. The plaintiff’s solicitor objected to evidence about the search, on the basis that it was irrelevant to the validity of the issue of thewarrant. I allowed the evidence, stating that I would determine its relevance in the light of final submissions about the merits of the matter.

Facts

3     On 3 August 1996 Mr and Mrs Vincent’s fourteen year old daughter, Keira, attended Redfern police station, where Snr Cnst Campbell was on duty. There was conflict in the evidence about how she came to be at the police station, but I do not find it necessary to resolve it. She told Snr Cnst Campbell that her parents had been selling cannabis from the home at Waterloo for some time. She said that each morning they obtained the cannabis from a woman, whom she knew only as Taina, at a block of flats in Brighton-Le-Sands. She also claimed that her parents were receiving stolen property.

4     Snr Cnst Campbell located a building at Brighton-Le-Sands which answered the description provided by Keira, and enquiries revealed that one of the flats was occupied by a woman whose Christian name was Taina. He also obtained police intelligence reports relating to Mr and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vincent v Randall

Details

AGLC: Vincent v Randall [1999] NSWSC 833
Case: [1999] NSWSC 833
Decision Date: 19 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent and Randall were involved in a legal dispute that was heard by the court. Vincent alleged that Randall, a police officer, had unlawfully obtained and executed a search warrant based on false information provided to the authorising justice. The central issue before the court was whether the other information provided to the authorising justice constituted reasonable grounds for the issuance of the warrant, independent of the alleged false information. This required the court to examine the legal standards for the issuance of search warrants and the impact of misinformation on the validity of such warrants.

The court needed to determine whether the other information provided to the authorising justice, excluding the alleged false information, was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the warrant. The analysis involved assessing the totality of the information presented to the justice, including its accuracy and relevance, and whether it independently supported the decision to issue the warrant. The court had to balance the need for law enforcement to conduct searches against the importance of ensuring that such actions are legally justified.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the other information provided to the authorising justice was indeed sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for the issuance of the search warrant. The court emphasised that the presence of false information did not necessarily invalidate the warrant if the remaining information was adequate on its own. The court held that the warrant was properly issued based on the totality of the information available at the time, which included both the alleged false information and the other, independently sufficient information. This ruling underscored the importance of the authorising justice's role in ensuring that warrants are supported by reasonable grounds, even when some information may be later found to be inaccurate.

The court's final order was that the search warrant was valid and the actions taken under it were lawful. The court dismissed Vincent's claims, holding that the other information provided to the authorising justice was sufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant, independent of the alleged false information.

Orders