Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Luppino

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court
• Judgment Date: 25 March 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] FCAFC 43
• Date: 25 March 2021

Federal Court of Australia

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Luppino [2021] FCAFC 43

Appeal from:	Luppino v Fisher (No 2) [2019] FCA 1100
File number:	SAD 163 of 2019
Judgment of:	BESANKO, WIGNEY AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment:	25 March 2021
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW — appeal from an order of the primary judge that an order of a magistrate made pursuant to s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) is invalid — where an order pursuant to s 3LA was made in respect of a smart phone seized during the execution of a warrant for the search of a person — whether natural justice attaches to an application under s 3LA and the appellant was entitled to a hearing before the s 3LA Order was made — statutory construction of s 3LA — whether the s 3LA Order requires details of the information or assistance to be provided by the person to whom the order is directed — whether the s 3LA Order requires information as to the place at which and the time within which the information or assistance must be provided — whether the s 3LA Order contains the required details of the particular computer or data storage device which is the subject of the order — whether smart phone is a “computer or data storage device” for the purposes of s 3LA — whether breaches of various statutory provisions result in invalidity — whether the legislature intended to abrogate or curtail the privilege against self-incrimination — appeal allowed
Legislation:	Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5, 6 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Div 2 of Pt 1AA, ss 3, 3C, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3K, 3L, 3LA, 3LAA, 3UC, 3ZC, 3ZH, 3ZJ, 3ZL, 3ZQM, 3ZQO, 23ZA, 23ZD, 23ZF Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (No 2) (Cth) Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Act (No 2) 2010 (Cth) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 400.4 Cybercrime Act 2001 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] HCA 37; (2004) 219 CLR 562 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57; (1990) 170 CLR 596 Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; (1983) 153 CLR 52 Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2017] FCAFC 177; (2017) 257 FCR 166 Commissioner of Police v Tanos [1958] 98 CLR 383 Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 237; (2018) 262 FCR 449 Coward v Allen (1984) 52 ALR 320 CXXXVIII v Honourable Justice Richard Conway White [2020] FCAFC 75; (2020) 274 FCR 170 Dunesky & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [1996] 89 A Crim R 372; (1996) 33 ATR 491 Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union [2004] HCA 40; (2004) 221 CLR 309 Forsyth v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] HCA 8; (2007) 231 CLR 531 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 Hart v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police [2002] FCAFC 392; (2002) 124 FCR 384 Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen [2015] HCA 14; (2015) 256 CLR 1 Lacey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573 Lake Macquarie Shire Council v Aberdare County Council [1970] HCA 32; (1970) 123 CLR 327 Lansell House Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCA 329; (2010) 76 ATR 19 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39; (2013) 251 CLR 196 Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 253 CLR 455 Luppino v Fisher [2018] FCA 2016 Luppino v Fisher (No 2) [2019] FCA 1100 Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21; (2019) 266 CLR 554 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO [2009] HCA 37; (2009) 238 CLR 627 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union; Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2020] HCA 29; (2020) 381 ALR 601 North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory [2015] HCA 41; (2015) 256 CLR 569 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2015] FCAFC 50; (2015) 236 FCR 199 Petty v The Queen [1991] HCA 34; (1991) 173 CLR 95 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Connell; ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; (1944) 69 CLR 407 R v Gee [2003] HCA 12; (2003) 212 CLR 230 Reid v Howard [1995] HCA 40; (1995) 184 CLR 1 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 241 CLR 252 Sea Shepherd Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 68; (2013) 212 FCR 252 Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14; (2020) 376 ALR 575 Sorby v The Commonwealth of Australia [1983] HCA 10; (1983) 152 CLR 281 State of New South Wales v Corbett [2007] HCA 32; (2007) 230 CLR 606 Strickland v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] HCA 53; (2018) 266 CLR 325 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362 Tasker v Fullwood [1978] 1 NSWLR 20 Wei v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 51; (2015) 257 CLR 22 X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92 ; Pearce D, Statutory Interpretation (9th ed, LexisNexis, Butterworths, 2019)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	South Australia
National Practice Area:
Number of paragraphs:	249
Date of hearing:	21 May 2020
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr N Williams SC with Ms S Zeleznikow
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr S McDonald
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Patsouris & Associates
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent entered a Submitting Notice, save as to costs

ORDERS

		SAD 163 of 2019
BETWEEN:	COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Appellant
AND:	DANIEL LUPPINO First Respondent ; GREGORY CHARLES FISHER Second Respondent

order made by:	BESANKO, WIGNEY AND ABRAHAM JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 March 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The orders of the primary judge made on 15 July 2019 be set aside and in lieu thereof there be the following orders:

(1) The applicant’s application for judicial review pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) be dismissed.

(2) The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application to be taxed in default of agreement.

3. The first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BESANKO J:

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from an order made by a judge of this Court on 15 July 2019. The appellant is the Commissioner of the Australian Federal...