R v Constantinos RIGANIAS [2009] NSWDC 216

R v Constantinos RIGANIAS [2009] NSWDC 216

The recordings were admissible because, at the time they were made, Mr Saitis did not know whether the accused had committed an offence, was concerned about the whereabouts of his $194,000, had been unable to obtain proof that the money had gone into a trust account or property purchase, and had a lawful interest in obtaining evidence about where his money had gone. It was reasonably necessary for him to record the conversations to protect those lawful interests, so the recordings did not breach s 5 of the Listening Devices Act 1984.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial on Indictment / Application by the Crown Concerning Admissibility of Recorded Telephone Conversations During the Evidence in Chief of the First Crown Witness
Outcome
Evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'recorded Telephone Conversations' 'listening Devices' 'private Conversations' 'protection of Lawful Interests' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'recorded Telephone Conversations' 'listening Devices' 'private Conversations' 'protection of Lawful Interests' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence']

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 Trial on Indictment / Application by the Crown Concerning Admissibility of Recorded Telephone Conversations During the Evidence in Chief of the First Crown Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether recordings of private telephone conversations made by a party to the conversations breached s 5 of the Listening Devices Act 1984.' 'Whether recording the conversations was reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of the principal party under s 5(3)(b)(i) of the Listening Devices Act 1984.' 'If the recordings were obtained improperly or in contravention of the Listening Devices Act 1984, whether they should nevertheless be admitted under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The recordings were admissible because, at the time they were made, Mr Saitis did not know whether the accused had committed an offence, was concerned about the whereabouts of his $194,000, had been unable to obtain proof that the money had gone into a trust account or property purchase, and had a lawful interest in obtaining evidence about where his money had gone. It was reasonably necessary for him to record the conversations to protect those lawful interests, so the recordings did not breach s 5 of the Listening Devices Act 1984.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted.

Orders

  • ['Evidence will be admitted.']