R v Almirol [No 1] [2007] NSWSC 290

R v Almirol [No 1] [2007] NSWSC 290

The intercepted telephone evidence was admissible. The warrant was valid because, on the material before the AAT member, the accused was likely to use the Maunder Street telecommunications service when Mrs Davis telephoned him from that service, and s45 did not require the accused to initiate the communication. The omission of the arrest warrant from the supporting affidavit did not vitiate the warrant. Telstra's misdelivery of 24 May 2003 calls to a product delivery line for another warrant was, if an irregularity at all, not substantial and did not prevent use of the evidence. The police did not improperly obtain the evidence under s138, and although Mrs Davis was a police agent and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder / Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling on Intercepted Telephone Conversations
Outcome
Telephone intercept evidence allowed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Telephone Intercept Evidence' 'validity of Telecommunications Interception Warrant' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions for Unfairness' 'police Agent Questioning Without Caution']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'telecommunications Interception'] ['admissibility of Telephone Intercept Evidence' 'validity of Telecommunications Interception Warrant' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Admissions for Unfairness' 'police Agent Questioning Without Caution']

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 Proceeding for Murder / Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling on Intercepted Telephone Conversations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the telecommunications interception warrant was invalid because the accused was overseas and the Australian landline was not a service he was using or likely to use within s45(c) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979.' "Whether Telstra's delivery of intercepted calls to the product delivery line for a different warrant made the 24 May 2003 interceptions unlawful or inadmissible." 'Whether the intercepted conversations should be excluded under s138 of the Evidence Act 1995 as improperly or illegally obtained evidence.' 'Whether the intercepted conversations should be excluded under s90 of the Evidence Act 1995 because it would be unfair to use the admissions against the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The intercepted telephone evidence was admissible. The warrant was valid because, on the material before the AAT member, the accused was likely to use the Maunder Street telecommunications service when Mrs Davis telephoned him from that service, and s45 did not require the accused to initiate the communication. The omission of the arrest warrant from the supporting affidavit did not vitiate the warrant. Telstra's misdelivery of 24 May 2003 calls to a product delivery line for another warrant was, if an irregularity at all, not substantial and did not prevent use of the evidence. The police did not improperly obtain the evidence under s138, and although Mrs Davis was a police agent and the...

Court Disposition

Telephone intercept evidence allowed.

Orders

  • ['The intercepted telephone conversations were admitted, subject to possible directions and/or editing to protect against prejudice from things said by Trocio.']