Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14

Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14

The search warrant issued on 3 June 2019 was invalid because it misstated and failed to specify with sufficient precision the offence under s 79(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), contrary to s 3E(5)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the entry, search, and seizure by police were unlawful and constituted trespass. However, the plaintiffs were not entitled to mandatory injunctive relief (delivery up or destruction of the copied data) because (by majority) they could not point to a sufficient legal or equitable right, and discretionary/public interest factors militated against such relief.

Parties
Plaintiff: Annika Smethurst; Plaintiff: Nationwide News Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Commissioner of Police; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening); Amicus Curiae: Australian Human Rights Commission (amicus curiae); Second Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Special Case (stated Case) / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Special case answered: The search warrant was invalid; order for certiorari quashing the search warrant issued on 3 June 2019; first defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs; mandatory injunctive relief refused by majority (granted by minority).
Legal Topics
Validity of Search Warrants, Implied Freedom of Political Communication, Trespass, Injunctive Relief, Certiorari, Seizure of Property, Privacy, Auxiliary Equitable Jurisdiction
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Police Powers Equity Validity of Search Warrants Implied Freedom of Political Communication Trespass Injunctive Relief +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annika Smethurst

Plaintiff

Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Commissioner of Police

First Defendant

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth (intervening)

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (intervening)

Intervener

Australian Human Rights Commission (amicus curiae)

Amicus Curiae

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Case (stated Case) / Final Judgment in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant issued on 3 June 2019 (the Second Warrant) was invalid for misstating the relevant offence and failing to state the offence with sufficient precision under s 3E(5)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether injunctive relief (mandatory injunction) requiring delivery up or destruction of seized material should issue when a search is conducted under an invalid warrant
  3. 3 Whether an order under s 3LA of the Crimes Act or s 79(3) itself was invalid (not necessary to decide)

Ratio Decidendi

The search warrant issued on 3 June 2019 was invalid because it misstated and failed to specify with sufficient precision the offence under s 79(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), contrary to s 3E(5)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the entry, search, and seizure by police were unlawful and constituted trespass. However, the plaintiffs were not entitled to mandatory injunctive relief (delivery up or destruction of the copied data) because (by majority) they could not point to a sufficient legal or equitable right, and discretionary/public interest factors militated against such relief.

Court Disposition

Special case answered: The search warrant was invalid; order for certiorari quashing the search warrant issued on 3 June 2019; first defendant to pay plaintiffs' costs; mandatory injunctive relief refused by majority (granted by minority).

Orders

  • Certiorari quashing the search warrant issued on 3 June 2019.
  • First defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the special case.