R v Campbell; R v Waters (No. 4) [2023] NSWDC 629

R v Campbell; R v Waters (No. 4) [2023] NSWDC 629

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the accused had been on notice of the tracking and listening device material since January 2019 or, at the latest, February 2020; the Crown had complied with its duty of disclosure by disclosing the existence of the material not included in the brief; the Crown did not rely on the material the subject of the application; the likelihood that the listening device evidence would assist the accused was very low; the AFP threats issue was separate from the listening device material; any prejudice from the lost opportunity to assess the material was more illusory than real; and there was no prospect of miscarriage of justice or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application by Accused Campbell to Discharge the Jury During Trial
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Discharge Jury' 'fair Trial' 'prosecution Disclosure' 'subpoenaed Material' 'listening Device Material' 'tracking Device Material']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['application to Discharge Jury' 'fair Trial' 'prosecution Disclosure' 'subpoenaed Material' 'listening Device Material' 'tracking Device Material']

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 / Application by Accused Campbell to Discharge the Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because late-produced listening device material comprising over 10,000 files required further assessment by accused Campbell.' 'Whether the Crown had failed in its duty of disclosure in relation to tracking and listening device material and related AFP material.' 'Whether any prejudice to accused Campbell created a risk of miscarriage of justice or made the trial unfair.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the accused had been on notice of the tracking and listening device material since January 2019 or, at the latest, February 2020; the Crown had complied with its duty of disclosure by disclosing the existence of the material not included in the brief; the Crown did not rely on the material the subject of the application; the likelihood that the listening device evidence would assist the accused was very low; the AFP threats issue was separate from the listening device material; any prejudice from the lost opportunity to assess the material was more illusory than real; and there was no prospect of miscarriage of justice or...

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to discharge the jury refused.']