R v Connors - [2016] ACTSC 137

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Connors
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 137
Hearing Date:	20 June 2016
DecisionDate:	20 June 2016
Reasons Date:	28 June 2016
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	It is directed that the evidence of telecommunication records of the mobile phones set out in the Application in Proceedings dated 17 June 2016 be presented in the summary form as in the document annexed to the affidavit of Vienna Conliffe made 17 June 2016.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – intercepted calls and messages – telecommunications records – summary of evidence – evidence in documentary form – table summary – summary of evidence – no exercise of judgment or expression of opinion on material
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 50, 50(2)(a), 192, 192(2) Federal Rules of Evidence (USA), Rule 1006
Cases Cited:	Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 519 Beattie v Osman (No 3) [2009] NSWSC 824 Botany Bay City Council v Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (No 2) [2014] NSWLEC 101 Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180 Gate Gourmet Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) v Gate Gourmet Holding AG [2004] NSWSC 768 Lakeman v Finlay (1959) 59 SR (NSW) 5 Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 478 Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282 R v Hally [1962] Qd R 214 Re Idylic Solutions Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 568 Re Montecatini’s Patent (1973) 47 ALJR 161 R v Pearce [2001] NSWCCA 447 R v Seifert (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 358 R v Tucker [1907] SALR 30 Smith v The Queen (1970) 121 CLR 572 Southern Cross Financial Group (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Rodrigues [2005] NSWSC 621 Thackray v Gunns Plantations Ltd [2011] VSC 380
Texts Cited:	S Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters Lawbook Co, 11^th ed, 2014) Australian Law Reform Commission, NSW Law Reform Commission, Victoria Law Reform Commission, Uniform Evidence Law – Report, ALRC Report No 102 (2005)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Andrew John Connors (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Hickey and Mr S Drumgold (Crown) Mr W Terracini SC and Mr D Berents (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Defendant)
File Number:	SCC 220 of 2015

REFSHAUGE J:

Andrew John Connors, the accused, has been charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. He has pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, a trial is to be held to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged or not.

Part of the evidence that the Crown proposes to lead at the trial consists of a large number of electronic communications by way of lawfully intercepted telephone calls and SMS messages from telephone numbers associated with Mr Connors and persons whom the Crown alleges were also involved in the offending behaviour.

The evidence has been reduced to documentary form, but is, it is suggested by the Crown, not in a form that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Connors

Details

AGLC: R v Connors [2016] ACTSC 137
Case: [2016] ACTSC 137
Decision Date: 20 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Connors involved the defendant, Connors, facing charges related to intercepted calls and messages obtained from telecommunications records. The matter was heard in a court that had jurisdiction to handle such telecommunications-related evidence. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility and presentation of this evidence in court.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the proper format and presentation of telecommunications records in summary form, specifically whether a table summary could be used and if it could include an analysis or opinion from the party presenting the evidence. The court was required to determine whether such summaries should be devoid of any exercise of judgment or expression of opinion regarding the material, and if there were any specific guidelines or standards to be adhered to in this context.

The court found that the presentation of the evidence in a summarised form, as a table, was permissible provided it met certain criteria. The summary should strictly present the facts without any exercise of judgment or expression of opinion. The court held that this approach ensured that the evidence was clear, concise, and unbiased, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The court directed that the evidence should be presented in the summary form as outlined in the document annexed to the affidavit of Vienna Conliffe dated 17 June 2016. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules in the presentation of evidence to avoid any potential prejudice or misdirection of the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is directed that the evidence of telecommunication records of the mobile phones set out in the Application in Proceedings dated 17 June 2016 be presented in the summary form as in the document annexed to the affidavit of Vienna Conliffe made 17 June 2016.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.