R v Popovic, Miras; R v Burke, Christopher [2014] NSWDC 69

R v Popovic, Miras; R v Burke, Christopher [2014] NSWDC 69

Although important parts of Drago Popovic's evidence were obtained improperly or as a consequence of impropriety, the impropriety was not deliberate, the evidence was important in very serious drug proceedings, the issues about credibility and reliability could fairly be put before the jury, and the Crown discharged its onus under s 138. Section 137 did not require exclusion because the objections largely concerned reliability or believability, matters for the jury to evaluate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Application by Both Accused to Exclude Certain Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Application to exclude certain evidence refused
Legal Topics
['police Interrogation' 'impropriety in Obtaining Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'rollover Witnesses' 'drug Importation Conspiracy']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['police Interrogation' 'impropriety in Obtaining Evidence' 'exclusion of Evidence' 'rollover Witnesses' 'drug Importation Conspiracy']

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 Proceedings / Application by Both Accused to Exclude Certain Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether critical parts of the evidence of Drago Popovic were obtained improperly or in consequence of impropriety within s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the desirability of admitting Drago Popovic's evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting it given the way it was obtained." "Whether s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provided a separate basis for excluding Drago Popovic's evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although important parts of Drago Popovic's evidence were obtained improperly or as a consequence of impropriety, the impropriety was not deliberate, the evidence was important in very serious drug proceedings, the issues about credibility and reliability could fairly be put before the jury, and the Crown discharged its onus under s 138. Section 137 did not require exclusion because the objections largely concerned reliability or believability, matters for the jury to evaluate.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude certain evidence refused

Orders

  • ['Application to exclude certain evidence refused']