Federal Court. In Australia, it a matter of "ordinary human experience" that a copy of an arrest warrant may be left with a third party connected to the suspected offender? Are the laws of a foreign country relating to the issuance of arrest warrants a matter of "ordinary human experience"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that an administrative decision-maker, acting rationally, could not "determine that a statement to the effect that a copy of an arrest warrant [issued in any Australian jurisdiction] had been left with a third party connected to the suspected offender was implausible unless the decision-maker had specific knowledge or some relevant evidence about the relevant law and practice"? In other words, can it be said that, in Australia, it is not a matter of "ordinary human experience" that a copy of an arrest warrant may be left with a third party connected to the suspected offender?
Question 2: Can it be said that, "even if well informed about law and practice in the decision-maker’s home country [relating to the issuance of arrest warrants], this information cannot reliably inform an assessment of the law and practice with respect to arrest warrants in a very different legal system, such as that of Sri Lanka"?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is "yes", are the laws of a foreign country relating to the issuance of arrest warrants a matter of "ordinary human experience"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: