Director of Public Prosecutions v PM

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v PM, the appellant sought to have the first respondent's evidence admitted, which was sought to be excluded on the basis that it was unfair and prejudicial to the appellant. The evidence was obtained by the police via telephone calls to the first respondent which the appellant claimed were made under pretext. The application was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant was charged with 24 offences, including perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office, and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The appellant appealed against the County Court's decision to admit the first respondent's evidence on the basis that the evidence was obtained unfairly and its probative value outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.

The appeal was concerned with the County Court's decision to admit the first respondent's evidence. The court was required to decide whether the evidence was obtained unfairly and whether its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice. The court had to consider the nature of the police conduct, the purpose of the telephone calls, and whether the first respondent's evidence was obtained under pretext. The court was also required to determine whether the evidence had probative value and whether it was necessary to the case.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was obtained unfairly and that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The Court found that the police conduct amounted to a subterfuge, and the evidence was obtained under pretext. The Court held that the evidence had probative value, but it was not necessary to the case. The Court held that the evidence was not admissible. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court did not make any orders, as the appeal was dismissed.