Smethurst v Commissioner of Police
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Smethurst v Commissioner of Police | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Smethurst v Commissioner of Police |
| Decided | 15 April 2020 |
| Citation | [2020] HCA 14 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon & Edelman JJ |
| Case opinions | |
| 4:3 where an unlawful search by police results in the seizure of government proprietary information, there does not exist a juridical basis (legally-protected right or interest) sufficient to ground an injunction compelling the return of that information(per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle JJ) | |
| Dissent | an equitable injunction ought be granted to ameliorate the consequences of a completed trespass. Damages could not address the fact police continued to hold Smethurst's private information, and the injunction could be framed so as to not unduly infringe upon the interests of police (per Edelman J) the original invasion of the plaintiff’s basic common law rights in land and goods through the unlawful search, provided the juridical basis for granting an injunction to reverse the ongoing consequences of those wrongs, namely the continued police retention of the phone data (per Gageler J) |
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police was a decision of the High Court of Australia. The court refused to grant an injunction to journalist Annika Smethurst, of The Sunday Telegraph, against the Australian Federal Police.
Smethurst was a journalist who worked for Nationwide News Pty Ltd, publisher of The Sunday Telegraph. She had written in the newspaper to inform readers of proposed changes to Australian Government powers of surveillance in relation to the Australian Signals Directorate. The story included images of documents marked "secret" and "top secret".[1][2] The Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at Smethurst's residential premises. Police downloaded material from her phone onto a USB stick and seized it.
The case was brought under the original jurisdiction of the High Court, through the s75(v) provision for the court's hearing of injunctions sought against officers of the Commonwealth.[3]