R v Eade

Case [2002] NSWCCA 257 28 June 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 131 A Crim R 390

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v. EADE [2002] NSWCCA 257

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60438/01

HEARING DATE(S): 23 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina - respondent
Wayne James Eade - appellant

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Hidden J at 57; Smart AJ at 58

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0010

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. T. Game SC with Mr. M.R. Bromwich for appellant
Mr. Barrett for respondent

SOLICITORS: Andrews Solicitors for appellant
S.E. O'Connor for respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - admissibility of evidence of conversation obtained contrary to Listening Devices Act 1984 - Whether transcript of evidence before Royal Commission was evidence of the conversation - CRIMINAL LAW - prohibited drugs - incitement to supply - Whether tehre can be incitement to supply to oneself

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Listening Devices Act 1984
Royal Commission (Police Service) Act 1994

CASES CITED:
Castle v. Olsen (1985) 3 NSWLR 26
R v. Assistant Recorder of Kingston-upon-Hull; Ex parte Morgan [1969] 2 QB 58
R v. Downey (1992) 66 ACrimR 1
R v. Eade (2000) 118 ACrimR 449
R v. Massie (1993) 103 ACrimR 551
Young v. Cassells (1914) 33 NZLR 852

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60438/01
99/11/0010

HODGSON JA
HIDDEN J
SMART AJ
Friday 28 June 2002

REGINA v. Wayne James EADE

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: On 7 May 2001, the appellant was arraigned on an indictment containing two counts.

2 The first charged that the appellant on 7 September 1995 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, being a witness at a hearing before the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, knowingly gave false testimony, namely, that he had never engaged in any form of illegal conduct, which was testimony touching a matter material in an inquiry being made by the said Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service.

3 The second charged that the appellant on 12 September 1995 at Green Point in the State of New South Wales, did incite Therese Hart to supply a prohibited drug, namely, 3,4 Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy).

4 The appellant pleaded not guilty to both counts. A trial before Kinchington DCJ and a jury commenced on 14 May 2001, and concluded on 18 May 2001, with a guilty verdict on both counts. The appellant was sentenced to a fixed term of fifteen months imprisonment on the first count, and a cumulative sentence of six months on the second count.

5 The appellant has appealed to this Court against his conviction on two grounds:

The learned trial judge erred in admitting into evidence at the trial of the appellant transcripts of evidence before the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service that contained evidence of conversations obtained in contravention of s.5 of the Listening Devices Act 1984.

The learned trial judge erred in ruling that the appellant had…

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 Eade

Details

AGLC: R v Eade [2002] NSWCCA 257
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date: 28 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eade was heard in the High Court of Australia, with Eade as the appellant and the Crown as the respondent. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the Listening Devices Act 1984, specifically a transcript of a conversation that was later presented as evidence in a case involving the incitement to supply prohibited drugs. The crux of the matter was whether this transcript constituted evidence of the conversation, and if so, whether it could be admitted into court under the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the transcript in question could be considered as evidence of the conversation, despite being obtained in violation of the Listening Devices Act 1984. Secondly, the court needed to determine whether incitement to supply prohibited drugs could occur when directed at oneself. The court had to navigate the balance between the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally and the principles of criminal liability in the context of incitement to supply drugs.

In its decision, the court held that the transcript did constitute evidence of the conversation. However, the court also found that the evidence was inadmissible due to the manner in which it was obtained, in clear contravention of the Listening Devices Act 1984. This ruling underscored the importance of adhering to legislative provisions designed to protect privacy and maintain the integrity of the legal process. Additionally, the court ruled that incitement to supply prohibited drugs could indeed occur when directed at oneself, thus broadening the scope of criminal liability in this area. This decision has significant implications for the interpretation and application of incitement laws in Australia.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of the appellant be quashed due to the inadmissible evidence, and the matter be remitted to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law. This outcome highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that the administration of justice is conducted in a manner that respects both statutory provisions and the principles of fairness.

Orders