QLD Can a Justice authorise an order for access to a device after seizure PPRA 154(a) if the possession of the property by QPS was no longer lawful?

[cakeforbreakfast]

My questions relate to:

POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 154(a) Order after digital device has been seized

Issue:
154a seems to place little restrictions or oversight to the circumstances to which Police have acquired a device that they demand access to. This seems to be in conflict with the common law right to own property, unlawful interfienance with property and human rights one has not to be deprived of ones property arbitrarily.

Personal circumstances :
Property seized under a search warrant PPRA sec 151 (a)(i) and later served 154(a).

Circumstances at the time 154(a) was served:
(a) It had been more than 30 days since the property was seized (120 days )
(b) No order had been obtained that authorised QPS to retain the property for longer than 30 days.
(c) No charges were before the court to which the property relates.
(d) No steps had been taken to minimise the need for QPS to retain the property and see its return the lawful owner (eg: copying disc drives).
(e) Requests had been made for the return of the property by the lawful owner.

Question 1:

Have my rights to own property at common law been interfered with by:

• Not returning the property when the exemptions that allowed for interference ny law enforcement under PPRA had been exhausted?
• When access to my digital property was gained via physical property that QPS has no lawful authority to posses.

Question 2:

In authorising an order for access sec 154(a) a Judicial officer is required to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the device information may be relevant evidence. When considering this is the Judical officer required to consider the lawful possession of the property police require access to (as described (a) - (e) above.

Question 3:

Is non compliance to 154(a) under the circumstances described above (a) - (e) a lawful excuse?





I have complied with an order sec 154(a) and after the fact the following has come to light.

• No legal proceeding were commenced by the police within 30 days of obtaining device access or at all to date.
• My property was not returned.
• The search warrant that the seized property in mention relates has been deemed invalid.

QPS made it an absolute nightmare to retrieve my property. The fact I had complied and there were no proceedings as an outcome had no relevance. There was no genuine effort to see my property returned in fact it felt as if I was intentionally given the run around. I was only able to collect my property from QPS after writing a letter to the Police Commissioner requesting its release.

The property seized from me was a desktop computer, two mobile phones and a tablet. The items I used for personal and business use. Having the property seized was an inconvenience to say the least. I had lost all my data and even the backup. To make things worse I have no doubt everything was copied by QPS and it will be used on a Judicially approved QPS fishing expedition at some stage when convenient.



Question 4:

Is their legal action one could take other than filing a complaint regarding police misconduct? Considering i have had my common law rights to own property interfered with and additionally the huge invasion of privacy I have been subject to who should be held accountable for this and is compensation for such interference due ?

In these circumstance I can’t help but feel let down by the whole Justice system. Not only the police who have a duty to uphold the law at whole, not just selective laws they wish to enforce but the justice system including the judicial officers who are in a position to provide oversight to ensure police dont overstep their lawful authority when interfering with citizens right.


Thank you for providing your opinion of this matter.