› Search warrants — collateral challenge — distinction between facial validity and lawful execution
Criminal law
› Evidence
› Exclusion of evidence — evidence obtained pursuant to stale warrant — unlawfully obtained evidence
Criminal law
› Procedure
› Warrants — National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) s 22(6) — reasonable time for execution
Quick Take
1A search warrant issued under s 22(6) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) that does not specify an expiry date is subject to an implied requirement that it be executed within a reasonable time; once that period elapses the warrant becomes stale and ceases to authorise the entry and search it purports to permit.
2The reasonableness of the period between issue and execution of a warrant is assessed by reference to the text, context and purpose of the authorising statute and the coercive nature of the power conferred — not by the subjective view of the executing officer or by analogy with time limits in other legislation. A warrant authorising break-and-enter and search should be executed promptly, and unexplained periods of inaction weigh against reasonableness.
3The question of whether a warrant was stale at the time of execution is distinct from whether the warrant is valid on its face; staleness falls within the scope of permissible collateral challenge on a voir dire, with the onus on the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that the warrant had expired.
