NH v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Jakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Zefi v The Director of Public Prosecutions; Stakaj v The Director of Public Prosecutions

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained through covert surveillance. The appellants, NH, Jakaj, Zefi, and Stakaj, were charged with various offences, including conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of heroin. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of recordings made by listening devices installed in vehicles used by the appellants, which were obtained pursuant to warrants issued under the *Crimes (Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime) Act 1989* (Vic). The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the evidence was admissible, while the appellants contended it was unlawfully obtained and therefore inadmissible.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the listening devices were lawfully installed and used, and consequently, whether the recordings constituted admissible evidence. This required the Court to interpret the scope and application of the *Crimes (Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime) Act 1989* (Vic) and the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), particularly concerning the powers to obtain warrants for surveillance and the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of statutory provisions. The Court also had to consider the principles of statutory interpretation in determining whether the Victorian Act permitted the use of listening devices for the purpose of obtaining evidence of criminal conduct beyond the scope of proceeds of crime offences.

The High Court held that the warrants issued under the Victorian Act were invalid because the Act did not authorise the use of listening devices for the purpose of investigating general criminal offences, but rather for the specific purpose of identifying and confiscating the proceeds of crime. Consequently, the recordings obtained through the use of these devices were unlawfully obtained. The Court applied the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of statutory provisions is generally inadmissible, particularly where the contravention involves a serious interference with individual rights. The Court further clarified that the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) did not provide a basis for the lawful use of the listening devices in this instance.

The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The High Court ordered that the evidence obtained by the listening devices be excluded, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions be permanently stayed from further prosecuting the appellants.