Doyle v NSW Commissioner of Police (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1787

Doyle v NSW Commissioner of Police (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1787

The issuing officer's reliance on applicant's grounds, without further annotation or alteration, did not invalidate the warrant; sufficient connection exists between all items sought and the offences investigated. The procedural omissions alleged by the plaintiffs did not amount to jurisdictional error nor did they materially affect the exercise of discretion. Items, including electronic devices possibly owned by non-investigated parties, were lawfully seized under the warrant.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Phillip William Doyle; Second Plaintiff: Mark Barbeliuk; First Defendant: NSW Commissioner of Police; Second Defendant: Detective Tiffany O'Neill; Third Defendant: Deputy Registrar Cally D'Arcy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief (criminal Law, Administrative Law) / Judgment on Applications for Orders, Declarations and Restraining Access to Items Seized Under Search Warrant
Outcome
Plaintiffs' applications dismissed; warrant upheld; no restraining orders preventing access or return of items; proceedings stood over for directions and finalisation of agreed orders.
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Invalidity and Judicial Review, Seizure of Electronic Devices, Child Abuse Material Offences, Prerogative Writs, Tendency Evidence
Criminal Law Administrative Law Search Warrants Invalidity and Judicial Review Seizure of Electronic Devices Child Abuse Material Offences Prerogative Writs Tendency Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip William Doyle

First Plaintiff

Mark Barbeliuk

Second Plaintiff

NSW Commissioner of Police

First Defendant

Detective Tiffany O'Neill

Second Defendant

Deputy Registrar Cally D'Arcy

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief (criminal Law, Administrative Law) / Judgment on Applications for Orders, Declarations and Restraining Access to Items Seized Under Search Warrant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether decision to apply for a search warrant was invalid or flawed
  2. 2 Whether decision to issue the search warrant was invalid
  3. 3 Whether the search warrant was invalid due to non-disclosure or insufficient connection

Ratio Decidendi

The issuing officer's reliance on applicant's grounds, without further annotation or alteration, did not invalidate the warrant; sufficient connection exists between all items sought and the offences investigated. The procedural omissions alleged by the plaintiffs did not amount to jurisdictional error nor did they materially affect the exercise of discretion. Items, including electronic devices possibly owned by non-investigated parties, were lawfully seized under the warrant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' applications dismissed; warrant upheld; no restraining orders preventing access or return of items; proceedings stood over for directions and finalisation of agreed orders.

Orders

  • Counsel to serve proposed Short Minutes of Order reflecting the judgment and provide to Associate by 18 December 2019.
  • Proceedings stood over for directions and consideration of appropriate orders to 9.30am on 20 December 2019.