Chairman, National Crime Authority & Anor v Flack, Margaret Elizabeth [1998] FCA 932

Chairman, National Crime Authority & Anor v Flack, Margaret Elizabeth [1998] FCA 932

By majority, the respondent's exclusive possession of an ordinary residential house was sufficient to establish a manifested intention to possess and control chattels in the premises, including unknown chattels, subject to any superior right of the true owner. The presence of keys held by her children and friend, the concealed location of the locked briefcase, and the unusual or suspicious character of the cash did not rebut that possession. The appellants' statutory rights under the warrant ceased once the briefcase and cash were no longer required for investigation or evidence, and no adverse Jones v Dunkel inference displaced the respondent's case. The appeal was therefore dismissed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal in a Tort/conversion Proceeding Concerning Possession and Return of Goods Seized Under a Search Warrant / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['conversion' 'possession of Chattels Found in Residential Premises' "occupier's Possessory Rights" 'search Warrant Seizure and Retention of Seized Goods' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']
['tort' 'property' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conversion' 'possession of Chattels Found in Residential Premises' "occupier's Possessory Rights" 'search Warrant Seizure and Retention of Seized Goods' 'jones V Dunkel Inference']

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

Appeal in a Tort/conversion Proceeding Concerning Possession and Return of Goods Seized Under a Search Warrant / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent, as sole occupier and tenant of residential premises, had a possessory right to a locked briefcase and cash found in her home although she did not own them and was unaware of them before discovery.' 'Whether the occupier of a private residence had manifested a sufficient intention to exercise control over the premises and all things in them.' 'Whether the apparent concealment and suspicious character of the briefcase and cash rebutted the presumption of possession arising from residential occupation.' 'Whether the appellants retained any statutory or common law right to keep the briefcase and cash after they were no longer required for investigation or evidence.' 'Whether a Jones v Dunkel inference adverse to the respondent should be drawn because she did not give evidence at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the respondent's exclusive possession of an ordinary residential house was sufficient to establish a manifested intention to possess and control chattels in the premises, including unknown chattels, subject to any superior right of the true owner. The presence of keys held by her children and friend, the concealed location of the locked briefcase, and the unusual or suspicious character of the cash did not rebut that possession. The appellants' statutory rights under the warrant ceased once the briefcase and cash were no longer required for investigation or evidence, and no adverse Jones v Dunkel inference displaced the respondent's case. The appeal was therefore dismissed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']