Grollo v Palmer [1995] HCA 26

High Court of Australia Brennan CJ Deane, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ Grollo v Palmer [1995] HCA 26

ORDER

1. Answer the question reserved in the special case stated as follows: No.

2. Remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia to hear and determine the proceedings in accordance with the answer given to the question reserved.

3. The applicant to pay the respondents' costs of the special case and of the hearing and determination of the question reserved.

Cur adv vult

The following written judgments were delivered: —

21 September 1995 Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ.

The applicant, Bruno Grollo, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia claiming a declaration of invalidity of the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Cth (the Act) and injunctive relief relating to the use which might be made of information allegedly acquired by intercepting telephone calls pursuant to a warrant issued under the challenged provisions of the Act. A case was stated for the consideration of the Full Court of the Federal Court stating for that Court's determination the question:

Are sections 6D and 6H and Divisions 3 & 4 of Part VI of the Act invalid as being beyond the power of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia? The proceedings have been removed into this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 Cth. The question reserved by the stated case now falls for determination.

The provisions of the Act

Section 7(1) of the Act prohibits the interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system. A contravention of s 7(1) is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment: s 105(1) and (2). However, s 7(2)(b) excludes from the application of s 7(1) "the interception of a communication under a warrant". The issue of warrants by various authorities is provided for in Pts III, IV and VI of the Act.