Brewer, Richard James v Castles, Shane Francis & Ors [1984] FCA 58

Brewer, Richard James v Castles, Shane Francis & Ors [1984] FCA 58

A search warrant is invalid only to the extent it authorises the seizure of documents which are, on their face, subject to legal professional privilege (here, 'opinions of counsel'), but otherwise remains valid if it is possible to sever the invalid provision.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Richard James Brewer; Respondent: Shane Francis Castles; Respondent: Brett Jackson; Respondent: Patrick Quinn; Respondent: Carlo Graser; Respondent: John Charles Levett
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 1984
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Decision on Validity of Search Warrant
Outcome
The warrant was set aside to the extent that it authorised the seizure of 'opinions of counsel'; otherwise, the warrant was declared valid; costs were reserved; further hearing was adjourned.
Legal Topics
Validity of Search Warrant, Legal Professional Privilege, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Validity of Search Warrant Legal Professional Privilege Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard James Brewer

Applicant

Shane Francis Castles

Respondent

Brett Jackson

Respondent

Patrick Quinn

Respondent

Carlo Graser

Respondent

John Charles Levett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Decision on Validity of Search Warrant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search warrant is invalid in whole or part because it authorises the seizure of documents subject to legal professional privilege

Ratio Decidendi

A search warrant is invalid only to the extent it authorises the seizure of documents which are, on their face, subject to legal professional privilege (here, 'opinions of counsel'), but otherwise remains valid if it is possible to sever the invalid provision.

Court Disposition

The warrant was set aside to the extent that it authorised the seizure of 'opinions of counsel'; otherwise, the warrant was declared valid; costs were reserved; further hearing was adjourned.

Orders

  • Order that the subject warrant be set aside to the extent that it purports to authorise the first respondent to seize 'opinions of counsel' there specified.
  • Otherwise declare that the said warrant is valid.