Miller v The Queen; Smith v The Queen; Presley v The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from the Supreme Court of South Australia in three separate cases: *Miller v The Queen*, *Smith v The Queen*, and *Presley v The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia*. The central dispute in each case concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through covert surveillance, specifically the use of listening devices, and the application of the *Listening Devices Act 1991* (SA). The applicants argued that the evidence obtained via these devices should have been excluded due to alleged non-compliance with the Act.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Listening Devices Act 1991* (SA) applied to the use of listening devices by law enforcement officers in circumstances where the device was not physically placed on private premises, but rather its signals were intercepted from outside those premises. This question involved an interpretation of the definition of "use" of a listening device under the Act and whether it encompassed the interception of signals emanating from a device deployed covertly.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the Act did not apply to the interception of signals from a listening device that was not itself placed on private premises. Their Honours reasoned that the definition of "use" in the Act required the physical placement of the device on private premises. Therefore, the interception of signals from a device located outside private premises did not constitute "use" within the meaning of the Act, and consequently, the Act's warrant requirements were not triggered. The Court found that the evidence obtained was admissible.