R (Cth) v Petroulias (No. 9) [2007] NSWSC 84

R (Cth) v Petroulias (No. 9) [2007] NSWSC 84

The Accused failed to establish any impropriety by AFP investigators in their dealings with Mr Morgan. The investigators had reasonable grounds to believe Mr Morgan was criminally involved, accurately conveyed the seriousness of his position, gave him the opportunity for independent legal advice, did not misrepresent his position, and used an interview and recording process that did not amount to improper pressure or manipulation. Accordingly, s.138 Evidence Act 1995 was not engaged and Mr Morgan's evidence was not excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Voir Dire Objection/application to Exclude the Entirety of Crown Witness Richard Llewellyn Morgan's Evidence Under S.138 Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence' 'section 138 Evidence Act 1995' 'induced Witness Statement' 'use Derivative Use Undertaking' 'australian Federal Police Investigation Conduct']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence' 'section 138 Evidence Act 1995' 'induced Witness Statement' 'use Derivative Use Undertaking' 'australian Federal Police Investigation Conduct']

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 / Voir Dire Objection/application to Exclude the Entirety of Crown Witness Richard Llewellyn Morgan's Evidence Under S.138 Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the entirety of the evidence to be given by Richard Llewellyn Morgan was obtained improperly, or in consequence of impropriety, within the meaning of s.138 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether AFP investigators acted improperly by treating Mr Morgan as a suspect and then obtaining his cooperation as a Crown witness through an induced interview and a proposed undertaking under s.9 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Accused failed to establish any impropriety by AFP investigators in their dealings with Mr Morgan. The investigators had reasonable grounds to believe Mr Morgan was criminally involved, accurately conveyed the seriousness of his position, gave him the opportunity for independent legal advice, did not misrepresent his position, and used an interview and recording process that did not amount to improper pressure or manipulation. Accordingly, s.138 Evidence Act 1995 was not engaged and Mr Morgan's evidence was not excluded.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to exclude the evidence of Richard Llewellyn Morgan under s.138 Evidence Act 1995 is refused.']