Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2016] FCA 1132

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2016] FCA 1132 File number: NSD 86 of 2015

Judge: WIGNEY J

Date of judgment: 15 September 2016

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) regarding decisions to issue search warrants under s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) CRIMINAL LAW – practice and procedure – search warrants – whether information on oath before an issuing officer was sufficient to support the issue of search warrants under s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – whether there was reasonable grounds for suspecting that there were things at certain premises in respect of which there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the things would afford evidence as to the commission of the offences to which the search warrants related – where the applicant claimed that the offences were described in terms that were broader than the information before the issuing officer justified – whether the descriptions of the offences in the search warrants were adequate to indicate the authorised area of search and seizure – seizure of electronic equipment and storage devices – where applicant claimed that a paragraph in the search warrants purported to authorise the seizure of a storage device where the device was not itself evidential material and seizure was not authorised under s 3F or s 3L of the Crimes Act – severance – whether an invalid part of a search warrant can and should be severed – lawful execution of search warrants – where applicant claimed that the warrants were executed unreasonably and excessively – where the applicant claimed that executing officers and constables assisting did not understand or misunderstood the offences described in the search warrants – where applicant claimed that officers of the Australian Federal Police placed excessive reliance on officers of the Australian Taxation Office – where applicant claimed that executing officers and constables assisting searched and seized by reference to a document other than the search warrant – where the applicant claimed that electronic equipment were seized in circumstances not authorised by s 3F and s 3L of the Crimes Act – appropriate relief to grant when the Court finds that items seized where not lawfully seized – whether the court retained a discretion not to order the return of unlawfully seized items – relevant considerations in the exercise of the Courts discretion not to order the return of unlawfully seized items.