Luppino v Fisher (No 2) [2019] FCA 1100

Luppino v Fisher (No 2) [2019] FCA 1100

Section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires that an order specify, with particularity, the information or assistance to be provided, the period within which, and the place at which, such information or assistance is to be provided, and must identify the particular computer or data storage device the subject of the order; lack of such particularity renders the order invalid. Further, in absence of evidence before the Magistrate establishing that a mobile phone is a 'computer' or 'data storage device', satisfaction could not reasonably be formed and the order is invalid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure' 'search Warrants' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'statutory Interpretation']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure' 'search Warrants' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'statutory Interpretation']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires particularity in orders as to information or assistance, period or place, and device;' "Whether a mobile phone is a 'computer' or 'data storage device' under s 3LA;" 'Whether procedural fairness is required in granting a s 3LA order;' 'Whether the order was made validly by the Magistrate in personal capacity;' "Whether the Magistrate's state of satisfaction was reasonable"]

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires that an order specify, with particularity, the information or assistance to be provided, the period within which, and the place at which, such information or assistance is to be provided, and must identify the particular computer or data storage device the subject of the order; lack of such particularity renders the order invalid. Further, in absence of evidence before the Magistrate establishing that a mobile phone is a 'computer' or 'data storage device', satisfaction could not reasonably be formed and the order is invalid.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • ['Declaration that the order of the First Defendant made on 30 August 2018 under s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) with respect to the Plaintiff is invalid.']