Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 460

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 460

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 - Listening Devices Act, 1984 - purported "warrant" - tender rejected - T6500
DECISION:	See paragraph 4

DLJT: 163
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 460

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

THURSDAY 26 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Admissibility - Listening Devices Act, 1984 - purported “ warrant ” - tender rejected - T6500)

1    HIS HONOUR: It is sought to tender through Federal Agent Marzio Da Re, presently giving evidence, the document presently part of Exhibit 162, which was admitted conditionally earlier this week, insofar as it purports to be warrant 308 of 1995, issued apparently on 4 December 1995 by Grove J. 2    Objection to the tender is founded on two bases; one there is no mention in Federal Agent Da Re's statement of this warrant, thus it is sought to lead evidence from him outside the terms of his statement. I have ruled that that is not an available course. 3    The second basis upon which I propose to reject the tender of that document presently forming part of Exhibit 162, is on its face it cannot be described as a warrant issued by a judge of this court. It is a photocopy of a document with obliterations, and I shall extract from 162 that which is said to be warrant 308 of 1995. 4    I think it important to note that this document, together with others, was provided by the Police Integrity Commissioner to the defendant pursuant to a request, and was accompanied by a s 56(4) certificate. I have not been informed that any of this material, in particular this “warrant,” has been otherwise produced to this court pursuant to an order of the Court constituted, for example, by a subpoena.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000