Love v The Attorney-General for New South Wales & Anor; Peters & Anor v The Attorney-General for New South Wales

These proceedings involved appeals by Love and Peters against the Attorney-General for New South Wales and the Director of Public Prosecutions for New South Wales. The central dispute concerned the validity of warrants granted under the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW) and the admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to those warrants. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the circumstances surrounding the grant of a warrant under section 18 of the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW) could be investigated during a trial. This question arose in the context of whether evidence obtained via such a warrant should be excluded if there was a procedural or substantive error in its issuance. The applicants sought to challenge the basis upon which the warrants were granted, arguing that such an investigation was permissible.

The Court considered its previous decision in *Murphy v The Queen*, which had affirmed that warrants granted by a judge of the Supreme Court under the Listening Devices Act were judicial orders. The applicants contended that this established that such warrants were judicial orders, and they sought to investigate the circumstances of their grant. The Court of Criminal Appeal had previously held that no such investigation should be permitted during a trial, reasoning that a warrant issued by a superior court was presumed valid until set aside on appeal. The High Court's discussion indicated a focus on the implications of *Murphy v The Queen* for the presumption of validity of judicial orders, particularly in the context of challenges to evidence obtained under them.