Director of Public Prosecutions v Webb

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of a Local Court magistrate who had excluded evidence obtained under warrants issued pursuant to the *Listening Devices Act 1984* (NSW) and the *Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979* (Cth). The respondent was charged with summary offences, and the prosecution's brief of evidence, served on the respondent, did not include copies of the warrants or evidentiary certificates relating to this intercepted material. The magistrate had excluded the evidence on the basis that the brief did not comply with section 66B of the *Justices Act 1902* (NSW), which requires the prosecution to serve "documents regarding the evidence that the prosecution intends to adduce in order to prove the commission" of the offence.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the warrants and evidentiary certificates were "documents regarding the evidence that the prosecution intends to adduce" for the purposes of section 66B of the *Justices Act 1902* (NSW). The prosecution argued that the intercepted material itself constituted the evidence, and the warrants and certificates were merely authorisations for its collection, not evidence of the commission of the offence. The respondent contended that these documents were essential to understanding the basis and admissibility of the intercepted evidence and therefore fell within the scope of section 66B.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, applying the principles from *DPP v Sounthorn*, held that the warrants and evidentiary certificates were not documents "regarding the evidence that the prosecution intends to adduce in order to prove the commission" of the offence. The Court reasoned that section 66B was concerned with providing the accused with information about the evidence that directly proved the elements of the offence, not with the procedural authorisations for obtaining that evidence. The warrants and certificates were administrative documents authorising the interception, and their absence from the brief did not render the intercepted material inadmissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.