Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133

Price v Elder [2000] FCA 133

Neither ground advanced by Mr Price was made out: there was no breach of duty regarding disclosure, as the statute did not require consideration of the undisclosed material and no prior formal application for a warrant had been made. The discretion conferred by s 3E is not confined so as to require the issuing officer to make inquiries or the applicant to disclose more than the grounds for suspicion, and no contravention of s 3E(4) was established, as no prior application in the statutory sense occurred before the sworn information.

Parties
Appellant: John James Price; First Respondent: Wendy Elder; Second Respondent: Douglas Seymour; Third Respondent: Isabel Jirasek; Fourth Respondent: Christian Phelan; Fifth Respondent: Mark Knoth; Sixth Respondent: Danny Straford; Seventh Respondent: Adrian Webster; Eighth Respondent: Christopher Buttner; Ninth Respondent: Allan Williams; Tenth Respondent: Michael Banach; Eleventh Respondent: Kelvin Cam
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court After Dismissal of Applications by Single Judge
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Search Warrants, Judicial Review, Disclosure Obligations, Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Criminal Law Search Warrants Judicial Review Disclosure Obligations Review of Administrative Decisions

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John James Price

Appellant

Wendy Elder

First Respondent

Douglas Seymour

Second Respondent

Isabel Jirasek

Third Respondent

Christian Phelan

Fourth Respondent

Mark Knoth

Fifth Respondent

Danny Straford

Sixth Respondent

Adrian Webster

Seventh Respondent

Christopher Buttner

Eighth Respondent

Allan Williams

Ninth Respondent

Michael Banach

Tenth Respondent

Kelvin Cam

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court After Dismissal of Applications by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether failure to take into account relevant considerations when issuing search warrants
  2. 2 whether issuing officer under duty to make inquiries
  3. 3 whether applicant for warrant under duty to disclose information that a reasonable applicant would disclose

Ratio Decidendi

Neither ground advanced by Mr Price was made out: there was no breach of duty regarding disclosure, as the statute did not require consideration of the undisclosed material and no prior formal application for a warrant had been made. The discretion conferred by s 3E is not confined so as to require the issuing officer to make inquiries or the applicant to disclose more than the grounds for suspicion, and no contravention of s 3E(4) was established, as no prior application in the statutory sense occurred before the sworn information.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed;
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs.