R v Amoedo & Dominguez [2006] NSWDC 188

R v Amoedo & Dominguez [2006] NSWDC 188

The evidence was obtained in contravention of Australian statutory law and at least improperly because the Australian authorities had no power under the Customs Act 1901, the Customs (Interception of Vessels) Regulation 2001 or the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to board, search, seize material from, and direct the Taruman in the manner undertaken. However, the officers and decision makers had reasonable grounds to believe Fisheries Management Act offences had occurred, acted in good faith rather than mala fide or deliberately to break Australian law, and the impropriety resulted from mistaken, careless or negligent reasoning. The evidence was highly probative, vital to the prosecution,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Application Pursuant to S.138 Evidence Act 1995 to Exclude Evidence Following Refusal of a Permanent Stay and Arraignment
Outcome
The Crown established that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting it; the s.138 Evidence Act 1995 exclusion application was refused.
Legal Topics
['illegally Obtained Evidence' 'illegal Search and Seizure' 'discretion to Admit Evidence Under S.138 Evidence Act 1995' 'boarding and Seizure of Vessel' 'fisheries Management Act Offences']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'customs and Fisheries Enforcement' 'international Law'] ['illegally Obtained Evidence' 'illegal Search and Seizure' 'discretion to Admit Evidence Under S.138 Evidence Act 1995' 'boarding and Seizure of Vessel' 'fisheries Management Act Offences']

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 Prosecution / Application Pursuant to S.138 Evidence Act 1995 to Exclude Evidence Following Refusal of a Permanent Stay and Arraignment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence obtained during searches of the Taruman on 6 September 2005 was obtained improperly or in contravention of an Australian law, or in consequence of such impropriety or contravention, for the purposes of s.138 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether Australian authorities had power under ss.184A and 185A Customs Act 1901, the Customs (Interception of Vessels) Regulation 2001, the Fisheries Management Act 1991, or otherwise to board, search, seize evidence from, and direct the Taruman.' 'Whether the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in the way it was obtained.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was obtained in contravention of Australian statutory law and at least improperly because the Australian authorities had no power under the Customs Act 1901, the Customs (Interception of Vessels) Regulation 2001 or the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to board, search, seize material from, and direct the Taruman in the manner undertaken. However, the officers and decision makers had reasonable grounds to believe Fisheries Management Act offences had occurred, acted in good faith rather than mala fide or deliberately to break Australian law, and the impropriety resulted from mistaken, careless or negligent reasoning. The evidence was highly probative, vital to the prosecution,...

Court Disposition

The Crown established that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting it; the s.138 Evidence Act 1995 exclusion application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The evidence obtained from the Taruman is admissible.']