Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 40] [2008] NSWSC 1460

Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 40] [2008] NSWSC 1460

The challenge failed because s 18(1) leaves relevance to the judgment of the carrier's certifying officer and uses broad language covering acts or things done by, or in relation to, employees of the carrier in order to enable execution of a warrant. The impugned paragraphs of the Optus certificates stated matters that the certifier was entitled to consider relevant to the technical execution of the warrant, and s 18(2) made the certificate conclusive evidence of the matters stated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Concerning Admissibility of Telecommunications (interception) Act 1979 Evidentiary Certificates / Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of Evidentiary Certificates Before Trial
Outcome
Application refused; the Court declined to make the orders sought.
Legal Topics
['evidentiary Certificates' 'admissibility' 'hearsay' 'telecommunications Interception Warrants' 'conclusive Evidence Under S 18(2)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'telecommunications Interception'] ['evidentiary Certificates' 'admissibility' 'hearsay' 'telecommunications Interception Warrants' 'conclusive Evidence Under S 18(2)']

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 Concerning Admissibility of Telecommunications (interception) Act 1979 Evidentiary Certificates / Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of Evidentiary Certificates Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidentiary certificates issued under s 18(1) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 should be excluded as irrelevant or inadmissible hearsay because they allegedly failed to state relevant facts within the meaning of the section.' 'Whether paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Optus certificate certified facts within the ambit of s 18(1), or instead stated impermissible conclusions or matters not done by employees of the carrier.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenge failed because s 18(1) leaves relevance to the judgment of the carrier's certifying officer and uses broad language covering acts or things done by, or in relation to, employees of the carrier in order to enable execution of a warrant. The impugned paragraphs of the Optus certificates stated matters that the certifier was entitled to consider relevant to the technical execution of the warrant, and s 18(2) made the certificate conclusive evidence of the matters stated.

Court Disposition

Application refused; the Court declined to make the orders sought.

Orders

  • ['I decline to make the orders sought.']