Murray Vernon Quartermaine v Cedric John Netto & ors [1984] FCA 437

Murray Vernon Quartermaine v Cedric John Netto & ors [1984] FCA 437

The warrant was not invalid by reason only of its description of the offences, things to be seized and persons suspected. Although it did not specify dates or times, the offences were sufficiently particularised when the reference to conspiring to defraud the Australian Taxation Office was read together with the limitation to material relating directly or indirectly to the payment of commissions by airline companies to the applicant and the named businesses. That description was sufficient to inform the executing officer what to look for and to allow persons at the premises to assess what was required. The warrant also recited that the justice was satisfied by information on oath, so it...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application Under Order 54 a of the Federal Court Rules Implementing S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903, Challenging a Search Warrant / Preliminary Determination of the Validity of the Search Warrant
Outcome
The Court declared that the search warrant obtained by the first respondent on 23 October 1984 was not invalid by reason only of the description of offences, things directed to be seized and the person or persons suspected of the offences therein, with liberty to apply as to further orders.
Legal Topics
['search Warrant Validity' 'particularity of Offences' 'particularity of Things to Be Seized' 'public Interest Immunity' 'judicial Review Under S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903']
['administrative Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['search Warrant Validity' 'particularity of Offences' 'particularity of Things to Be Seized' 'public Interest Immunity' 'judicial Review Under S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903']

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

Administrative Law Application Under Order 54 a of the Federal Court Rules Implementing S.39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903, Challenging a Search Warrant / Preliminary Determination of the Validity of the Search Warrant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the search warrant was invalid because it failed to relate the material authorised to be seized to any specified offence.' 'Whether the description of the material to be seized was too wide because it was unqualified as to time or circumstance.' 'Whether the absence of a date or time of the alleged offences affected the validity of the warrant.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to production of the information placed before the justice to test whether there was evidence justifying the issue of the warrant.' 'Whether public interest immunity protected information or supporting material relating to investigations into possible criminal offences.']

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant was not invalid by reason only of its description of the offences, things to be seized and persons suspected. Although it did not specify dates or times, the offences were sufficiently particularised when the reference to conspiring to defraud the Australian Taxation Office was read together with the limitation to material relating directly or indirectly to the payment of commissions by airline companies to the applicant and the named businesses. That description was sufficient to inform the executing officer what to look for and to allow persons at the premises to assess what was required. The warrant also recited that the justice was satisfied by information on oath, so it...

Court Disposition

The Court declared that the search warrant obtained by the first respondent on 23 October 1984 was not invalid by reason only of the description of offences, things directed to be seized and the person or persons suspected of the offences therein, with liberty to apply as to further orders.

Orders

  • ['The Court declares that the search warrant obtained by the first respondent on 23 October 1984 is not invalid by reason only of the description of offences, things directed to be seized and the person or persons suspected of the offences therein.' 'Liberty to apply as to further orders in accordance with these...