Chong v Schultz [2000] FCA 582
Errors or inaccuracies in describing the statutes or offences in search warrants do not of themselves invalidate the warrants so long as the offences are otherwise intelligibly stated, and the required bounds to the search are properly set.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 May 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['search Warrants' 'judicial Review' 'construction' 'validity of Warrants']
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
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the search warrants validly stated the offences to which they relate under s 3E(5)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)' 'Whether misdescription or inaccurate citation of sections renders a warrant invalid']
Ratio Decidendi
Errors or inaccuracies in describing the statutes or offences in search warrants do not of themselves invalidate the warrants so long as the offences are otherwise intelligibly stated, and the required bounds to the search are properly set.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs fixed at $5,000."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment