Regina v John Ibrahim [2006] NSWDC 6

Regina v John Ibrahim [2006] NSWDC 6

The recorded conversation evidence was obtained improperly and in contravention of Australian law because police used Roy Malouf as their agent to induce John Ibrahim to make threats through deceit, persistent importunity and misuse of the apparent existence of a Crime Commission summons, while failing to seek controlled operation authorisation that could have made the conduct lawful. Under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995, the desirability of admitting the evidence did not outweigh the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that way, so the evidence was excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Admissibility Ruling on Evidence
Outcome
There was impropriety of such a type that the evidence should be excluded.
Legal Topics
['improperly Obtained Evidence' 'controlled Operations' 'listening Devices' 'recorded Conversations' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 138']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['improperly Obtained Evidence' 'controlled Operations' 'listening Devices' 'recorded Conversations' 'exclusion of Evidence Under S 138']

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 / Admissibility Ruling on Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of the recorded conversation should be excluded as improperly or unlawfully obtained.' 'Whether police conduct in arranging the meeting through Roy Malouf amounted to impropriety or contravention of Australian law.' 'Whether the failure to seek authority for a controlled operation under the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 was significant under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the alleged threats in the conversation could amount to the offence charged.']

Ratio Decidendi

The recorded conversation evidence was obtained improperly and in contravention of Australian law because police used Roy Malouf as their agent to induce John Ibrahim to make threats through deceit, persistent importunity and misuse of the apparent existence of a Crime Commission summons, while failing to seek controlled operation authorisation that could have made the conduct lawful. Under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995, the desirability of admitting the evidence did not outweigh the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that way, so the evidence was excluded.

Court Disposition

There was impropriety of such a type that the evidence should be excluded.

Orders

  • ['The evidence is excluded.']