Director of Public Prosecutions v AM

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions bringing a matter before the court against AM. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained during an arrest, and whether this arrest was conducted improperly or unlawfully. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues at hand required the court to determine the meaning of the terms "improper" and "in consequence of an impropriety" as they appear in section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The court also needed to assess whether the arrest was unnecessary, hence improper, and whether the magistrate erred in law by failing to provide reasons for the conclusion fundamental to the application of section 138 to the facts of the case.

The court found that the purpose or intention to commit an impropriety is not essential in all cases, and an objective standard of behaviour may be sufficient in some circumstances. The court also clarified that not all inappropriate conduct by a law enforcement officer would necessarily be "improper" as defined in section 138(1)(a). Additionally, the court determined that a relevant failure by a law enforcement officer to comply with statutory obligations may constitute either or both unlawfulness and impropriety for the purposes of a public policy discretion. The court held that the magistrate erred in law by not giving reasons for the conclusion fundamental to the application of section 138 to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the court explained that the term "obtained" in section 138(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) refers to evidence that has been acquired as a result of the improper or unlawful conduct.

In light of the above, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a re-trial. The court also directed the magistrate to provide reasons for the conclusion fundamental to the application of section 138 to the facts of the case in any future proceedings.