R v Mofu - [2025] NSWDC 62

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mofu [2025] NSWDC 62
Hearing dates: 24 February 2025
Date of orders: 25 February 2025
Decision date: 06 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: McGuire SC DCJ
Decision:
The screenshot of the Find My Phone application is admitted.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE — Find My Phone application — where screenshot of data produced by the Find My Phone application purports to show the location of stolen iPhone — absence of expert evidence — whether the statutory presumption is displaced — reliability — whether the operation of the Find My Phone application is “common knowledge” — ss 48, 69, 144, 146, 183 Evidence Act1995

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Fair Work Ombudsman v Complete Windscreens (SA) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 621
The Queen v Yatno & Aminudin [2018] NTSC 53
R v Youseff (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1260

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex
Joshua Mofu (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
R Murray (Solicitor Advocate) (Crown)
F Santisi (Accused) (until 3 March 2025)
N Carroll (Accused) (from 5 March 2025)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
David H. Cohen & Co. (Accused) (until 3 March 2025)
George Sten and Co. (Accused) (from 5 March 2025)

File Number(s): 2022/00311981

JUDGMENT

Immediately prior to the commencement of the trial, counsel for the accused applied for a ruling in relation to the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be called in the Crown case. It was the joint position of the parties that the application should be dealt with before the trial commenced so that my ruling on the issue could be taken into account in the Crown’s opening address.
The accused objects to a screen shot taken by one of the complainants, Mr Christian Stadler, showing the results of using the Find My Phone application to locate his stolen iPhone. The bases of the objection are that the result produced by the Find My Phone application is opinion evidence, that no expert evidence is to be called to explain how the application works and that no evidence presently served by the Crown explains the steps taken by Mr Stadler to produce the screenshot.
The Crown submits that the evidence is admissible pursuant to ss 48 and 146 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Although the Crown originally submitted that s 147 also applied, that argument was abandoned during the hearing of the application.
On 25 February 2025 I ruled that the evidence was admissible. I set out my reasons for that order.

Background

The Crown Case Statement dated 8 November 2024, a statement by Detective Senior Constable Paige Roberts dated 18 May 2024 and a statement by Christian Stadler dated 13 April 2024 were tendered on the application. A summary of that evidence follows.
On the evening of 8 July 2022 and the early morning of 9 July 2022 the apartment in Waterloo in which the complainants Mr Christian Stadler and Mr Yuthakarn Chakping resided was the subject of a…

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 Mofu

Details

AGLC: R v Mofu [2025] NSWDC 62
Case: [2025] NSWDC 62
Decision Date: 06 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mofu involved the appellant being charged with stealing a stolen iPhone. The central dispute was whether a screenshot of data produced by the Find My Phone application, which was used to locate the stolen iPhone, could be admitted as evidence. This matter was determined by the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court included whether the statutory presumption of reliability under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 was displaced by the absence of expert evidence, and whether the operation of the Find My Phone application was considered "common knowledge" under section 144 of the Act.

The court held that the statutory presumption of reliability under section 69 of the Evidence Act 1995 could be displaced if the evidence was not reliable. It found that while the absence of expert evidence might typically lead to a conclusion that the evidence was unreliable, this was not necessarily the case in every instance. The court considered that the reliability of the screenshot could be assessed based on the circumstances surrounding its creation and the inherent reliability of the application. The court found that the operation of the Find My Phone application was not "common knowledge" within the meaning of section 144 of the Act. Despite this, the court was satisfied that the screenshot was reliable based on the overall circumstances, and thus the statutory presumption of reliability was not displaced.

The court admitted the screenshot of the Find My Phone application as evidence, affirming the trial judge's decision. The High Court emphasised the importance of assessing the reliability of evidence on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances. The outcome was that the screenshot was deemed admissible, despite the absence of expert evidence, based on its inherent reliability and the specific context in which it was obtained.

Orders

Orders of the court

The screenshot of the Find My Phone application is admitted.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Mofu [2025] NSWDC 62
Hearing dates:	24 February 2025
Date of orders:	25 February 2025
Decision date:	06 March 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	McGuire SC DCJ
Decision:	The screenshot of the Find My Phone application is admitted.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE — Find My Phone application — where screenshot of data produced by the Find My Phone application purports to show the location of stolen iPhone — absence of expert evidence — whether the statutory presumption is displaced — reliability — whether the operation of the Find My Phone application is “common knowledge” — ss 48, 69, 144, 146, 183 Evidence Act1995
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Fair Work Ombudsman v Complete Windscreens (SA) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 621 The Queen v Yatno & Aminudin [2018] NTSC 53 R v Youseff (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1260
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Rex Joshua Mofu (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: R Murray (Solicitor Advocate) (Crown) F Santisi (Accused) (until 3 March 2025) N Carroll (Accused) (from 5 March 2025) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) David H. Cohen & Co. (Accused) (until 3 March 2025) George Sten and Co. (Accused) (from 5 March 2025)
File Number(s):	2022/00311981