Sidaros v The Queen

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by Burns, Elkaim and Loukas-Karlsson JJ, heard an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of Mossop J. The applicant, Axel Sidaros, faced charges including attempted murder arising from an incident involving arson and firearms discharge. The primary judge had ruled admissible both evidence obtained through an undercover police operation and the opinion of a firearms and tool mark examiner that cartridges found at the scene were fired from a weapon located at the applicant's residence. The applicant sought to exclude this evidence.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal concerned the admissibility of the evidence obtained via the undercover operation and the expert opinion. Specifically, the court considered whether the use of evidence obtained after the applicant declined to participate in a police interview was at an unacceptable price according to prevailing community standards. It also examined whether the firearms examiner's opinion, stating the cartridges were discharged from a specific firearm, was admissible under section 79 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), and whether the basis for this opinion was sufficiently established as being derived from specialised knowledge.

The Court of Appeal determined that it was competent to hear the appeal. It reasoned that the evidence obtained from the undercover operation was procured in circumstances that breached the applicant's right to choose whether or not to speak, and that admitting this evidence would be at a price unacceptable by community standards, particularly given the applicant's refusal to be interviewed. Furthermore, the court found that the firearms examiner's opinion lacked the necessary objective criteria to establish it was wholly or substantially based on specialised knowledge, rendering it inadmissible.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders of the primary judge. The court ordered that the evidence obtained from the undercover operations and the opinion of the firearms examiner were not to be admitted at the applicant's trial.