Grollo v Palmer

Grollo v Palmer (1995)

Citation: 184 CLR 348

Court: High Court of Australia

Plaintiff: Grollo

Defendants: Palmer & Others

Judges: Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ

This case involved the Australian Federal Police and their actions in obtaining evidence by intercepting the defendants Grollo’s telephone calls. The AFP obtained a warrant to do so by Heerey J, a Federal Judge, under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth). The Act stated that a Federal judge, ‘an eligible judge’, was able to issue an interception warrant so long as the circumstances met the criteria of ss 45, 46 of the Act. Grollo took the case to the Federal Court arguing that the provisions were invalid and also applied for an injunction so that the evidence obtained could not be used against him. The case was taken to the High Court pursuant to section 40

(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Per Brennan CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ. (1) The power to issue a warrant must be exercised judicially, but this of itself does not characterise the power as a judicial power.

(2) The power conferred by ss 45 and 46 to issue warrants is not part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth because it does not involve an adjudication to determine the rights of parties.

(3) The designated person conception, should not be rejected. But the power to confer non-judicial functions on judges as designated persons is subject to the conditions that the conferral must be consented to by the judge and the function must not be incompatible either with the judge's performance of judicial functions or with the proper discharge by the judiciary of its responsibilities as an institution exercising judicial power.

(4) The function conferred on federal judges to issue warrants is not incompatible with their status and independence, the exercise of their judicial power or the maintenance of public confidence in the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.