R v Wiggins (No 6) [2022] NSWSC 1189

R v Wiggins (No 6) [2022] NSWSC 1189

The first intercept was excluded because its probative value was low, other evidence established the accused's concern and contacts, and the derogatory comments about police created a risk of unfair prejudice. The second intercept was admitted because it was significant to the discussion of the police investigation and the disappearance, with any unfair prejudice slight and curable by direction. The third intercept, excluding the "eye for an eye" portion not pressed by the Crown, was admitted because it was highly probative of the accused's belief that Darko Janceski was involved and his frustration with the investigation, and the remaining derogatory language did not outweigh that value....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Murder and Serious Assault / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Listening Device Intercept Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Objections allowed in part; one call excluded, one call partially excluded, and two calls not excluded.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Telephone Intercepts' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'motive Evidence' 'listening Device Recordings']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Telephone Intercepts' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'motive Evidence' 'listening Device Recordings']

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 for Murder and Serious Assault / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Listening Device Intercept Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether four intercepted telephone calls proposed to be tendered by the Crown should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the probative value of each disputed intercept was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether an edited version of the 1 December 2011 intercept was admissible after the Crown did not press the previously ruled inadmissible "eye for an eye" portion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first intercept was excluded because its probative value was low, other evidence established the accused's concern and contacts, and the derogatory comments about police created a risk of unfair prejudice. The second intercept was admitted because it was significant to the discussion of the police investigation and the disappearance, with any unfair prejudice slight and curable by direction. The third intercept, excluding the "eye for an eye" portion not pressed by the Crown, was admitted because it was highly probative of the accused's belief that Darko Janceski was involved and his frustration with the investigation, and the remaining derogatory language did not outweigh that value....

Court Disposition

Objections allowed in part; one call excluded, one call partially excluded, and two calls not excluded.

Orders

  • ['Call 1 is excluded.' 'Call 2 is not excluded.' 'Call 3 is partially excluded.' 'Call 4 is not excluded.']