Norman v The Queen

Norman (the applicant) appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for the offence of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine. The applicant had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria following a trial by jury. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police surveillance.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained through covert surveillance, specifically audio recordings made from a listening device, was admissible in circumstances where the applicant had not been arrested or charged at the time the surveillance commenced. The applicant argued that the surveillance was unlawful and therefore the evidence derived from it should have been excluded.

The Court considered the common law principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained by police. It was held that the common law does not, in itself, prohibit the use of evidence obtained by covert surveillance, even if the person is not under arrest. The admissibility of such evidence is generally a matter for the trial judge's discretion, balancing the probative value of the evidence against any prejudice it might cause to the accused. In this instance, the Court found no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence, as the surveillance was conducted under statutory authority and the evidence was relevant and highly probative of the conspiracy charge.

The appeal was dismissed.