R v Davis and Quinn (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1726

R v Davis and Quinn (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1726

Most of the impugned listening device evidence was ruled inadmissible due to irrelevance to a fact in issue, legal professional privilege, breach of statutory confidentiality attaching to plea and defence discussions under the EAGP scheme, or because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Only select portions were ruled admissible, with the remainder excluded to ensure a fair trial and accordance with statutory privilege protections.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility During Murder Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory orders on admissibility – certain listening device extracts admitted; majority excluded.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'evidence Admissibility' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'listening Device Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence' 'excessive Self Defence' 'evidence Admissibility' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'listening Device Evidence']

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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility During Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether certain listening device recordings are admissible as evidence in the murder trial of Blake Davis and Hannah Quinn' 'Whether parts of the recordings are inadmissible due to legal professional privilege, irrelevance, unfair prejudice, or statutory exclusion' 'Whether evidence from the EAGP (Early Appropriate Guilty Plea) scheme is subject to confidentiality and exclusion under relevant legislation' 'Assessment of whether certain conversations are relevant and more probative than prejudicial' 'Applicability and operation of client legal privilege and waiver thereof']

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the impugned listening device evidence was ruled inadmissible due to irrelevance to a fact in issue, legal professional privilege, breach of statutory confidentiality attaching to plea and defence discussions under the EAGP scheme, or because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. Only select portions were ruled admissible, with the remainder excluded to ensure a fair trial and accordance with statutory privilege protections.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders on admissibility – certain listening device extracts admitted; majority excluded.

Orders

  • ['LD 1 – admissible in agreed fact form; remainder inadmissible' 'LD 2 – partially admissible' 'LD 3 – admissible' 'LD 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20 – inadmissible' 'LD 19 – partially admissible' 'Other extracts – not pressed or withdrawn']