Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Ryan Larson (a pseudonym)[1] , Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) , Jonathon Farmer (a pseudonym) , Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) , Saul Reese (a pseudonym) ,

The case involves an appeal against the admissibility of evidence obtained during a customs inspection at an Australian airport. The respondents, Ryan Larson, Jonathon Farmer, and Saul Reese, challenge the decision to allow evidence obtained from the copying of their mobile phones by Customs officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) argues that the evidence is admissible and should not be excluded under the Evidence Act 2008. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence obtained from the respondents' mobile phones was improperly or illegally obtained, and therefore inadmissible under the Evidence Act. The court also had to consider whether the phones were subject to the control of Customs, and if the respondents' carriage of personal effects constituted an import or export under the Customs Act 1901.

The court found that the Customs officers' actions in copying the contents of the respondents' phones without prior examination were non-compliant with both the statute and operational instructions, and thus improper. However, the court held that the evidence was lawfully obtainable and had substantial probative value. The court considered the nature of the offence and concluded that the impropriety did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence. The court found that the phones were not subject to the control of Customs, and that the respondents' carriage of personal effects did not constitute an import or export under the Customs Act. The court also considered the case of DPP v Marijancevic and found that the evidence should not be excluded. The court held that the trial judge erred in concluding that the phones were not examinable by Customs.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the orders of the trial judge. The court held that the evidence obtained from the copying of the respondents' phones was admissible and should not be excluded under the Evidence Act. The court also held that the trial judge should have directed the jury on the proper application of the law to the facts of the case. The court referred a question of law to the trial court on the meaning of 'import' under the Customs Act, and how the jury should be directed in relation to this issue. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, and that the evidence obtained from the copying of the respondents' phones be admitted as evidence in the trial.