Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

News Corp journalist Annika Smethust,whose home was raided by federal police.Credit:Dominic Lorrimer

They contend the search was unlawful trespassing and the appropriate remedy was to destroy the evidence gathered or to prevent police from using it in their leak investigation.

Stephen Lloyd SC,acting for Smethurst,told the court the"warrant must refer to the offending conduct and not simply a bare reference to the section"of the relevant criminal law regarding unauthorised disclosure of official secrets.

"The absence of that is enough to say that this warrant doesn't state an offence known to law and in doing so is apt to mislead the ambit of the search and that makes the warrant invalid,"he argued,saying the lack of detail allowed for a very broad search.

As a remedy for the"wrongful"raid,Smethurst's legal team has been pushing for deletion of the phone data that was copied to a storage device by police. On Tuesday,Lloyd said it might be adequate for an injunction to be granted that simply stopped police from using the data.

Lloyd was pressed to clarify whether the information taken by police was considered confidential as part of his argument for an injunction.

The raid on Smethurst's home was part of an investigation triggered by her April 2018 story on an internal government proposal toexpand the domestic powers of electronic intelligence agency the Australian Signals Directorate.

Responding to the challenge against the warrant,Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue QC defended it as sufficient,arguing it was obvious to the reasonable person what the scope of the search was.

Donaghue argued the warrant only needed to state the general nature of the offence,not the particulars,and that"in the real world,there can't have been any real doubt"about the reason for the search.

The warrant cited section 79(3) of the Crimes Act,which concerns the unauthorised communication or release of an official secret. It also cited Smethurst's name and other details about the story,which Donaghue argued was even more information than was necessary and refined the scope of the warrant.

The Commonwealth argues that even if the court found the warrant was invalid,the evidence collected during the search should not be destroyed or kept from investigators,pending consideration in any criminal proceedings.

In their written submission to the court,Smethurst's lawyers have alsomounted a separate argument the secrecy laws underpinning the search warrant were in breach of the implied freedom of political communication contained in the constitution. The issue was not canvassed on Tuesday,with oral arguments confined to the technical legitimacy of the warrant.

The hearing continues.

License this article