Smethurst v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJANNIKA SMETHURST & ANOR  PLAINTIFFSANDCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANOR  DEFENDANTSSmethurst v Commissioner of Police[2020] HCA 14Date of Hearing: 12 & 13 November 2019Date of Judgment: 15 April 2020S196/2019ORDERThe questions of law stated in the special case filed on 6 September 2019 be answered as follows: (1)Is the search warrant issued on 3 June 2019 ("the Second Warrant") invalid on the ground that:(a)it misstates the substance of s 79(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), as it stood on 29 April 2018?Answer:Yes.(b)it does not state the offence to which it relates with sufficient precision?Answer:Yes.(c)s 79(3) of the Crimes Act, as it stood on 29 April 2018, was invalid on the ground that it infringed the implied freedom of political communication?Answer:Does not arise.(2)Is the order issued on 31 May 2019 under s 3LA of the Crimes Act invalid on the ground that:(a)at the time it was made, the Second Warrant was not in force? (b)it was made in aid of a different warrant, namely the warrant issued on 31 May 2019 ("the First Warrant")?(c)it did not specify the information or assistance required to be provided by the first plaintiff, with sufficient precision, or at all?(d)it did not specify the computer or data storage device to which it related, with sufficient precision, or at all?Answer:Unnecessary to answer.(3)Was s 79(3) of the Crimes Act, as it stood on 29 April 2018, invalid on the ground that it infringed the implied freedom of political...