Zhang v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON, EDELMAN, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJJOHN SHI SHENG ZHANG  PLAINTIFFANDTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS  DEFENDANTSZhang v Commissioner of Police[2021] HCA 16Date of Hearing: 7 & 8 April 2021Date of Judgment: 12 May 2021S129/2020ORDERThe questions of law stated in the special case filed on 11 November 2020 be answered as follows:(1)Are the First Search Warrant, the Second Search Warrant, and the Third Search Warrant invalid, in whole or in part, on the ground that:(a) they misstate the substance of s 92.3(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth)?(b) they fail to state the offences to which they relate with sufficient precision?(c) s 92.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) is invalid on the ground that it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication?(d) s 92.3(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) is invalid on the ground that it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication?Answer:The First Search Warrant, the Second Search Warrant and the Third Search Warrant are not wholly invalid on any of the identified grounds. The question is otherwise unnecessary to answer.(2) In light of the answer to Question 1, is the First s 3LA Order and/or the Second s 3LA Order invalid?Answer:No.(3) Is s 92.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) invalid on the ground that it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication?Answer:Unnecessary to answer. (4) Is s 92.3(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) invalid on the ground that it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication?Answer:Unnecessary to answer. (5) If...