R v Taleb [2019] NSWSC 241

R v Taleb [2019] NSWSC 241

The evidence from the cross-border controlled operation was obtained under an authority that did not strictly comply with the LECO Act, as the operation was not cross-border and predominantly related to Commonwealth offences. Still, given the good faith of police, the error was neither grave nor deliberate, the evidence was highly probative, the offence was serious, and such evidence could easily have been lawfully obtained, so the s 138 discretion favoured admissibility. The ERISP was excluded as police persisted in questioning after the accused asserted his right to silence, constituting grave impropriety. Telephone intercept warrants were valid as they did not exceed the statutory...

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Moudasser Taleb
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire and Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Rulings on evidence – some evidence admitted, other evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
Controlled Operations, Admissibility of Evidence, Right to Silence, Entrapment, Telecommunications Interception, Prejudicial Evidence, Police Conduct, Judicial Discretion, Expert Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Controlled Operations Admissibility of Evidence Right to Silence Entrapment Telecommunications Interception +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Moudasser Taleb

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire and Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained under a cross-border controlled operation authority was admissible when the operation did not cross state borders or exclusively investigated Commonwealth offences
  2. 2 Whether police failed to disclose exculpatory information or misled the issuing authority for a controlled operation
  3. 3 Whether questioning of the accused after asserting the right to silence rendered the ERISP inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence from the cross-border controlled operation was obtained under an authority that did not strictly comply with the LECO Act, as the operation was not cross-border and predominantly related to Commonwealth offences. Still, given the good faith of police, the error was neither grave nor deliberate, the evidence was highly probative, the offence was serious, and such evidence could easily have been lawfully obtained, so the s 138 discretion favoured admissibility. The ERISP was excluded as police persisted in questioning after the accused asserted his right to silence, constituting grave impropriety. Telephone intercept warrants were valid as they did not exceed the statutory...

Court Disposition

Rulings on evidence – some evidence admitted, other evidence excluded.

Orders

  • Evidence obtained under controlled operation CB CO 17/097, including UCO evidence and recordings, is admissible.
  • Evidence obtained under the Commonwealth Major Controlled Operation authority is admissible.