Yousha Sleiman v Jason Murray

Yousha Sleiman (the applicant) appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against an order of a judge who had dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate. The magistrate's decision concerned the taking of a buccal swab from the applicant for DNA analysis under the *Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000* (ACT).

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the magistrate's decision to authorise the taking of the buccal swab was amenable to judicial review, and if so, whether the magistrate had erred in law in making that decision. Specifically, the court considered whether the magistrate had correctly applied the balancing exercise required by the Act, which mandates that a forensic procedure is only justified if it is reasonable in all the circumstances. The applicant argued that the magistrate's decision was based on an irrelevant consideration or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.

The Court held that the magistrate's decision, being of an administrative character, was amenable to judicial review. However, it found no error of law in the magistrate's determination. The Court reasoned that while the admissibility of other evidence and the public interest in upholding the physical integrity of the suspect were relevant considerations, the magnitude of the intrusion involved in taking a buccal swab was relatively low. The Court was unable to conclude that the magistrate had overlooked the public interest in physical integrity, and therefore, the balancing exercise had been properly undertaken.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.