R v Rosamond (No 2) [2022] NSWDC 446

R v Rosamond (No 2) [2022] NSWDC 446

The recorded conversation was admissible because, at the time of the bank interview, there was no necessity to administer a criminal caution to Helen Rosamond; the recording device was used in Victoria and the Victorian legislation applied; because Mr Griffiths was a party to the conversation, recording it was not illegal or improper; providing the recording to NSW Police was not illegal or improper; and the accused had freely chosen to give an explanation, with no unfairness arising from the playing of the recording at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Recorded Conversation During Trial
Outcome
Recorded conversation admitted; challenges to admissibility rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'bank Investigation' 'interview Without Caution' 'covertly Recorded Conversation' 'surveillance Devices' 'improper or Illegal Evidence' 'unfairness Discretion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'bank Investigation' 'interview Without Caution' 'covertly Recorded Conversation' 'surveillance Devices' 'improper or Illegal Evidence' 'unfairness Discretion']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Recorded Conversation During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the recorded conversation with the accused should be excluded because no criminal caution was administered before the interview.' 'Whether the recording of the conversation was illegal or improper under NSW or Victorian surveillance device legislation.' 'Whether provision of the recording to NSW Police was illegal or improper.' 'Whether the recorded conversation should be excluded under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 as unfair to the accused.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 as improperly or illegally obtained.']

Ratio Decidendi

The recorded conversation was admissible because, at the time of the bank interview, there was no necessity to administer a criminal caution to Helen Rosamond; the recording device was used in Victoria and the Victorian legislation applied; because Mr Griffiths was a party to the conversation, recording it was not illegal or improper; providing the recording to NSW Police was not illegal or improper; and the accused had freely chosen to give an explanation, with no unfairness arising from the playing of the recording at trial.

Court Disposition

Recorded conversation admitted; challenges to admissibility rejected.

Orders

  • ['The recorded conversation is admitted.']