Harts Australia Limited v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2002] FCA 245

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harts Australia Limited v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2002] FCA 245

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – search warrants – judicial review of seizure decisions made in execution of search warrants – scope of power to seize under s 3F(1)(c) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – challenge to validity of seizure in its entirety on grounds of systematic failure by executing officers to determine whether seized items fell within the terms/conditions of the particular warrant – warrants issued pursuant to an investigation into suspected tax frauds – seizure of paper and electronic documents – return of all material seized sought ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – search warrants – warrant in connection with complex criminal investigation – public interest considerations – whether search and seizure was conducted reasonably within the bounds of the warrant – whether executing officers had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the document seized would afford evidence as to the commission of one or more of the offences listed in the warrant – relevance of size of proportion of material seized that is outside the warrant – sufficiency of information given to executing officers in relation to warrant conditions ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – search warrants – seizure of electronic material – scope of power under s 3L(2)(a) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to seize equipment that contains "evidential material" together with a mass of non-evidential material – scope of power under s 3L(2)(c)(i) to copy material stored electronically on equipment which comprises in part of "evidential material" and remove that electronic copy from warrant premises – whether it was not practicable to examine or process electronic information stored at the warrant premises pursuant to s 3K(2) – the time allowed to the seizing party to examine and process information in electronic form removed from the warrant premises – whether judicial review should be refused on discretionary grounds if removal of material satisfies the conditions under s 3K but seizure under s 3F is not justified WORDS AND PHRASES - "suspicion", "evidential material", "things", "process", "examine"