R v W J Eade - [2000] NSWCCA 369

Reported Decision: [2000] 118 A Crim R 449

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v W J Eade [2000] NSWCCA 369

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60049/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12/09/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Wayne James Eade

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Greg James J at 21; Kirby J at 30

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

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

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : T L Buddin SC (Crown/Resp)
P Byrne SC (App)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown/Resp)
Andrews (App)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Jurisdiction where issue is one of admissibility of evidence - Invalidity of Listening Device warrant - Admissibility of conversations recorded under invalid warrant

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 - s5F
Listening Devices Act, 1984 - Pt4; s5; s 7(2); s12; s13; s16
Listening Devices Act. 1969 (Vic) - s4A
Evidence Act, 1995 - s138; s142

CASES CITED:
Lethlean (1995) 83 A Crim R 197
Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633
R v EID (1999) 46 NSWLR 116
Bayeh v Taylor & Ors (unreported, 4/2/98)
Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69
Amalgamated Television Services P/L v Marsden [2000] NSWCA 167
R v Ellis Hill (23/2/88, unreported)
R v Zubrecky (unreported, 22/2/91
Violi & Ors v Berrivale Orchards Ltd (2000) 173 ALR 518

DECISION: Refer para 67

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60049/00

PRIESTLEY JA
GREG JAMES J
KIRBY J

Wednesday 15 November 2000

REGINA v Wayne James EADE

JUDGMENT
1   PRIESTLEY JA: The facts of this case, the matters that were raised by counsel for the accused, Mr Eade, before Kinchington DCJ and the way in which Kinchington DCJ dealt with those matters are set out in Kirby J’s reasons.
2   I agree with Kirby J that Kinchington DCJ was right in holding that the warrants to be relied upon by the Crown against the accused were invalid, but that that did not necessarily mean that evidence of the four conversations in question was inadmissible. I also agree with Kirby J and Greg James J that Kinchington DCJ was wrong, in ruling at the stage which he did, that he would not exclude the evidence in question from being placed before the jury. For the reasons given by both Kirby J and Greg James J that ruling was premature and may have been based on a misapprehension about onus (see par 63 of Kirby J’s reasons).
3   Despite my agreement with the views expressed by Kirby J and Greg James J on the matters that were argued before us, it seems to me desirable to add some observations concerning jurisdiction and procedure in the matters before the court.
4   After the presentment before Kinchington DCJ of the indictment against the accused containing the two charges detailed by Kirby J, but before a jury was empanelled, the judge was asked by counsel for the accused to rule on the admissibility into evidence of conversations between the accused and 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 W J Eade

Details

AGLC: R v W J Eade [2000] NSWCCA 369
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 369
Decision Date: 15 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v W J Eade involved the defendant, Eade, who was charged with drug trafficking offences. The crux of the dispute was whether the evidence obtained through the use of a Listening Device, which was recorded under a warrant that was later found to be invalid, should be admissible in the trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were the validity of the warrant under which the Listening Device was used and the admissibility of the evidence obtained through this device. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the conversations recorded under the invalid warrant were admissible in the trial. The defendant argued that the invalidity of the warrant should render the evidence inadmissible.

The court found that the warrant was invalid due to procedural errors, which rendered it null and void. However, the court held that the conversations recorded under the invalid warrant were still admissible. The rationale behind this decision was that the invalidity of the warrant did not necessarily render the evidence obtained through it inadmissible, provided that the evidence would have been obtained lawfully regardless of the warrant. The court emphasised the principle that evidence should not be excluded solely due to procedural errors if the evidence would have been admissible absent those errors. Consequently, the evidence was deemed admissible, and the trial proceeded with this evidence being considered by the jury.

The final orders of the court allowed the evidence obtained through the Listening Device to be admitted, despite the invalidity of the warrant. This decision meant that the trial continued with the contested evidence being part of the case against the defendant.

Orders