R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1483

R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1483

The recording of calls 7, 28, and 31 was unlawfully obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) because Bloodsworth was unaware of the interception. However, the probative value of the evidence, especially regarding the relationship and coordinated actions of the accused proximate to the alleged crime, outweighed the undesirability of its admission. The prejudice to Bloodsworth was negligible given the broader evidence in the trial relating to drug use. Therefore, the unlawfully obtained recordings were admitted under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Rhiannon Lisa Bloodsworth; Accused: Trent Errington
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Procedural Evidence Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Evidence of recorded telephone conversations admitted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Intercepted Telephone Conversations, Illegally Obtained Evidence, Probative Value, Unfair Prejudice, Joint Criminal Enterprise
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Intercepted Telephone Conversations Illegally Obtained Evidence Probative Value Unfair Prejudice Joint Criminal Enterprise

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Rhiannon Lisa Bloodsworth

Accused

Trent Errington

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Procedural Evidence Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recordings of telephone conversations intercepted via a phone application are unlawfully obtained evidence under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) and/or Surveillance Devices Act (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether unlawfully obtained evidence should be admitted under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether admission of evidence would cause unfair prejudice to the accused Bloodsworth under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The recording of calls 7, 28, and 31 was unlawfully obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) because Bloodsworth was unaware of the interception. However, the probative value of the evidence, especially regarding the relationship and coordinated actions of the accused proximate to the alleged crime, outweighed the undesirability of its admission. The prejudice to Bloodsworth was negligible given the broader evidence in the trial relating to drug use. Therefore, the unlawfully obtained recordings were admitted under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence of recorded telephone conversations admitted.

Orders

  • Recordings of telephone calls (calls 7, 28, and 31) admitted into evidence during the trial.