Vincent v Randall & Anor [1999] NSWSC 833

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Vincent v Randall & Anor [1999] NSWSC 833 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Administrative Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : 30085 of 1997 HEARING DATE(S) : 22/09/98; 23/09/98 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 August 1999

Susan Margaret Vincent (plaintiff) PARTIES : M. Randall, Authorised Justice (1st defendant) Steven Robert Campbell (2nd defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : S. Friend (solicitor for plaintiff) K. M. Guilfoyle (2nd defendant) SOLICITORS : Friend & Hazard (plaintiff) I.V. Knight/ Crown Solicitor (2nd defendant) CATCHWORDS : Administrative Law - search warrant - false information provided to authorising justice - whether other information provided reasonable grounds for issue of warrant. ACTS CITED : Search Warrants Act 1985 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 CASES CITED : Jason v Mijovich (NSWSC, Finlay J, unreported, 22 March 1991) Parker v Churchill (1985) 9 FCR 316 Patten v Justice of the Peace, Redfern Court (1996) 22 ACrim R 94 DECISION : Summons dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J 19 August 1999 No 30085 of 1997 Susan Margaret Vincent v M Randall & Anor Reasons for judgment

1 HIS HONOUR: In the evening of 7 August 1996 police executed a search warrant at a home in Waterloo occupied by the plaintiff, Susan Margaret Vincent, her husband, Colin Vincent and their two children. The first defendant is the justice who issued the warrant and the second defendant, Senior Constable Steven Campbell, is the police officer who applied for it and who, with other police, executed it. By summons in this Court, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the warrant was invalid and an order that it be set aside. 2 I received evidence, both by way of affidavit and orally, about the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the warrant and the events of the evening in which the search was carried out. The plaintiff's solicitor objected to evidence about the search, on the basis that it was irrelevant to the validity of the issue of thewarrant. I allowed the evidence, stating that I would determine its relevance in the light of final submissions about the merits of the matter.