Groom v Police

Groom appeals against a decision of the Magistrates Court of South Australia, seeking to extend the time within which an appeal can be commenced and to appeal the decision itself. The appeal concerns the admission of an audio recording of a conversation between the appellant and SB into evidence, and the subsequent finding that the appellant contravened a term of the intervention order. The Supreme Court was required to determine whether the audio recording was properly admitted into evidence, and if so, whether it allowed for a finding, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant had contravened a term of the intervention order.

The court found that the Magistrate was correct to admit the audio recording into evidence. The court noted that the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 regulates the use of listening devices to record private conversations and that the term “private conversation” is defined as any conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the conversation desires it to be confined to the parties to the conversation. The court found that the appellant’s words fell outside the type of conversation otherwise permitted by the terms of the intervention order. The court further found that, having regard to all of the evidence before the Magistrate, his Honour was correct to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant contravened a term of the intervention order.

The appeal has no prospect of succeeding. As such, a refusal of permission to appeal out of time would not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The application to extend the time within which to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.