Watts v The Queen

Watts appealed his conviction for armed robbery to the High Court of Australia. The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search of Watts's home, which Watts argued was conducted without lawful authority. The central dispute revolved around whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe that Watts had committed, or was about to commit, an offence involving property, which would have justified the search under the relevant legislation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the search of Watts's premises was lawful. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the police officers possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion that an offence involving property had been committed or was about to be committed, as required by s 32(1) of the *Summary Offences Act 1970* (NSW) to authorise a search without a warrant. The Court also had to consider the implications of any potential impropriety in the conduct of the search on the admissibility of the evidence obtained.

The Court held that the police officers did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that Watts had committed or was about to commit an offence involving property. The information available to the police at the time of the search was insufficient to form such a suspicion. Consequently, the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained as a result of that search should have been excluded from the trial. The Court reasoned that the purpose of s 32(1) was to protect individuals from arbitrary searches, and that a mere generalised suspicion or a belief that a person might be involved in criminal activity was not enough to satisfy the requirement of reasonable suspicion of a specific offence involving property.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.