Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston (No 6)

R v Cranston (No 6)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1777 14 December 2020

Admissibility of Evidence

Jurisdiction

Warrants

Surveillance

Proper Construction of Statutes

Authorisation of Conduct

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1777
Hearing dates: 16 November 2020
Date of orders: 14 December 2020
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
The notice of motion filed on 28 October 2020 is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – trial – case management – evidence – admissibility – s 18(5) Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – warrants – surveillance warrants – proper construction of Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – warrants – surveillance warrants – whether AFP conduct in executing warrants was authorised

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138
Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth), ss 14, 16, 17, 18, 44, 45, 65
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Carmody v MacKeller (1997) 76 FCR 115; [1997] FCA 839
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; [1994] HCA 1
Gouldv Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2018] NSWCCA 109; (2018) 359 ALR 142
Lee v NSW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39
R v Cranston (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1102
R v Cranston (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1103
R v Cranston (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1104
R v Cranston (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1105
R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2013] NSWCCA 42; (2013) 232 A Crim R 249
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34
Taylor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 (2014) 253 CLR 531; [2014] HCA 9
X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Adam Cranston (Applicant)
Lauren Cranston (Applicant)
Dev Menon (Applicant)
Jason Onley (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Cranston (in person)
T D Anderson (Lauren Cranston)
P Bruckner (Dev Menon)
R Johnson (Jason Onley)
R Maidment QC with R Sharp and L Robb Vujcic (Crown)
Solicitors:
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Pure Legal (Jason Onley)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/148697; 2017/148185; 2017/148776; 2017/149208
Publication restriction: Not to be published until after the trials of the applicants have been completed.

Judgment

PAYNE JA: On 20 September 2019, Adam Cranston, Lauren Cranston, Jason Onley and Dev Menon were committed for trial in this Court. On 6 December 2019, before Fullerton J, the accused pleaded not guilty to the following two counts in an indictment presented on that day:

“1. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere, did conspire with each other, Simon Paul Anquetil, Joshua Meredith Kitson, Devyn Michelle Hammond, Daniel Rostankovski and divers others with the intention of dishonestly causing a loss to a third person, namely the Commonwealth.
Contrary to section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
…
2. Between about 1 March 2014 and about 18 May 2017 at Sydney in…

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 Cranston (No 6)

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2020] NSWSC 1777
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1777
Decision Date: 14 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cranston (No 6), the appellant faced trial for various criminal offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained through surveillance devices and the legality of the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) conduct during the execution of surveillance warrants. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the proper construction of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) and the extent to which the evidence obtained should be admitted in court.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the evidence obtained through the surveillance devices was admissible under section 18(5) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth), and whether the AFP's conduct in executing the warrants was authorised under the Act. Specifically, the court had to consider the proper construction of the Act and the extent to which the evidence obtained was tainted by any procedural irregularities.

The court found that the evidence obtained through the surveillance devices was indeed admissible under section 18(5) of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth). The court concluded that the provisions of the Act were clear and unambiguous, and that the evidence obtained was not rendered inadmissible by any procedural irregularities. The court further held that the AFP's conduct in executing the warrants was authorised under the Act, and that any irregularities did not render the evidence inadmissible. The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained through the surveillance devices was admissible, and that the appellant's trial could proceed with the evidence in question. The court's decision provided clarity on the proper construction of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) and the admissibility of evidence obtained through surveillance devices.

Orders