Karageorge, C. v National Crime Authority [1995] FCA 295

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 892 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: CONSTANTINE KARAGEORGE Applicant AND: NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 8 May 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This judgment concerns an application to stay or summarily dismiss an application. On 19 December 1994 an application was filed in the Registry of the Court which is now said to be an application under s39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ("Judiciary Act") and under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("ADJR Act"). The application identified Mr Constantine Karageorge as the applicant and the National Crime Authority, the Commissioner for Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as the first, second, third and fourth respondents respectively.

The application was in the following terms: "APPLICATION UNDER TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT, 1979 - s45 Upon the grounds appearing in the Affidavit filed herein the Applicant claims:- 1. Orders including interlocutory orders that the Respondent supply to the Applicant within three days of the date of order copies of all Affidavits and documents used and relied upon for the issue of various warrants referred to in the schedule hereto. 2. For such further or other orders as to this Honourable Court shall be deemed necessary. 3. Costs." Annexed to the application was a schedule setting out in columns the date upon which a number of warrants were issued, the names of the issuing judges and the Act authorising their issue. While the application refers to grounds appearing in an affidavit, the affidavit of Mr Mark Hunter, solicitor, of 16 December 1994 did not, in terms, identify grounds. The affidavit recounted that Mr Karageorge had been arrested in July 1994 and charged with offences under Commonwealth and New South Wales law, that the charges were founded on evidence obtained from telephone intercepts and listening devices and that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had refused to supply copies of the affidavits which led to the issue of the warrants authorising the telephone interception and the use of the listening devices. It would appear from the Court file that the matter came before this Court on 3 March 1995 when Davies J gave the applicant leave to file an amended application and the first respondent leave to file in Court the notice of motion with which I am presently dealing. The amended application filed in Court was in the same terms as the original application save that the schedule was amended by both deletions and additions. On 23 March 1995 a further amended application was filed which was in the following terms: "Application pursuant to Section 39B of the Judiciary Act and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Upon the grounds appearing in the Affidavit filed herein the Applicant claims:- 1. Orders including interlocutory orders requiring officers of the first Respondent being officers of the Commonwealth to supply to the Court and/or the Applicant within three days of the date of order copies of all Affidavits and documents used and relied upon for the issue of various warrants as set out in the schedule and which purported to be issued pursuant to Section 16 of the Listening Devices Act (NSW); Section 12G(4) of the Australian Federal Police Act; Section 45 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and pursuant to Section 10 of the Crimes Act. 2. Orders including interlocutory orders for a Judicial Review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of the issue of warrants pursuant to Section 10 of the Crimes Act and of the sufficiency and correctness of the Affidavits and documents used and relied upon for the issue of the said warrants. 3. A declaration that the said warrants issued pursuant to the abovesaid acts and the affidavits and material relied upon the for issue of the said warrants infringed the principles of legal professional privilege and should not have been issued. 4. Orders including interlocutory orders setting aside the said warrants. 5. For such further or other orders as to this Honourable Court shall be deemed necessary. 6. Costs."