From a quick read, I think the judge is attempting to balance privacy and the law's impact on someone's rights. The Crimes Act is old enough that one could mak

From a quick read, I think the judge is attempting to balance privacy and the law's impact on someone's rights. The Crimes Act is old enough that one could make an argument that it was not envisaged that a warrant to access a "computer" would provide as much information as a modern mobile phone contains. That the impact on the individual, and the weight of the responsibility when using such a powerful warrant has changed since a "computer" was inserted into the Act by amendment. Just my quick reading. Certainly seems reasonable to at least have the conversation. Law's are written with purpose and to be interpreted as such, not solely based on the definition of a computer today - what was a computer then?