The Court held that the proper construction of s 21 LEPRA requires a three-step analysis: (1) whether the officer subjectively held a relevant suspicion, (2) a finding of fact as to what grounds the officer actually relied upon, and (3) an objective determination of whether those grounds are 'reasonable grounds' — the test is not whether the 'suspicion is reasonable', which conflates two distinct statutory requirements. On the facts, the grounds relied upon — proximity to an unrelated dishonesty call-out, young men out late at night, dark clothing, being in an 'anti-social behaviour' hotspot, and association with a person known to police — were held to fall well short of reasonable grounds both individually and cumulatively, rendering the search illegal. In the s 138 Evidence Act balancing exercise, the evidence was excluded notwithstanding its high probative value and the seriousness of knife offences, with the Court characterising the impropriety as 'honest but reckless' and emphasising the strong public interest in police compliance with the legislative regime governing search powers.
The full text is available to signed-in members.