Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 450

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 450

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

25 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

25 May 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J at 1

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Admissibility of Amended Notice under s 19 Listening Devices Act 1984 - Police Integrity Commission Act, 1996 - T6485
LEGISLATION CITED:	Listening Devices Act 1984 Police Integrity Commission Act 1996
DECISION:	See paragraph 8

DLJT: 161
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 450

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

Thursday 25 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Admissibility of Amended Notice under s 19 Listening Devices Act, 1984 - Police Integrity Commission Act, 1996 - T6485)

1 HIS HONOUR: There is presently giving evidence Peter Raymond French, in respect of whose testimony there is a certificate forming part of Exhibit 173. 2 The certificate has been signed by the Police Integrity Commissioner under s56(4)(c) of the Police Integrity Commission Act. He has purported to certify that witnesses may give evidence in the proceedings in accordance to their statements. 3 There has been handed to me a copy of the statement apparently made on 23 May 2000, which I will have marked for identification (MFI 187). 4 The witness has been shown a document in accordance with the ultimate paragraph of that statement, in which he has said a notice in accordance with s 19(1) of the Listening Devices Act in relation to certain specified warrants was signed by him. He has identified it as a document with its heading, his initials and signature on the last page. 5    I do not understand Detective French to have sworn on oath that this is the Notice that he signed in accordance with the last paragraph of his statement. There is a very good reason for that: the document that has been handed to him by examining counsel contains five pages that are completely obliterated, and one page that is partially obliterated. There is no way this officer can swear that the document handed to him in the witness box is that which he said is the Report referred to in his statement. 6    The Police Integrity Commissioner has issued the certificate to which I have referred, and without more its effect appears to be clearly to circumscribe the testimony of this and other officers by reference to their statements. 7    For reasons I have given in relation to the pieces of paper that have been handed to the officer in the course of his evidence in chief, he has not given and cannot give, evidence in accordance with the certificate as it relates to his statement. I reject the tender.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000