R v Lawrence (No. 2) [2003] NSWSC 656

R v Lawrence (No. 2) [2003] NSWSC 656

The phrase "satisfied, by information on oath" in subss 219B(5) and 219B(7) of the Customs Act does not require the issuing Judge or nominated AAT member personally to administer the oath. The information supporting the warrants was on oath even though sworn before NCA officers, and the warrants were not invalid on that ground. The further objections based on lack of specification of a particular narcotics offence and on revocation of an authority also failed, so the recorded conversations were admissible subject to particular objections.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Conspiracy to Import Narcotic Goods Being a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Conversations Recorded Under Listening Device Warrants
Outcome
The challenges to the listening device warrants and authorities failed; subject to particular objections, the recorded conversations were admitted.
Legal Topics
['validity of Listening Device Warrants' 'customs Act 1901 Division 1 A' 'information on Oath for Warrant Applications' 'admissibility of Unlawfully or Improperly Obtained Evidence' 'revocation of Authority to Use a Listening Device']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['validity of Listening Device Warrants' 'customs Act 1901 Division 1 A' 'information on Oath for Warrant Applications' 'admissibility of Unlawfully or Improperly Obtained Evidence' 'revocation of Authority to Use a Listening Device']

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 for Conspiracy to Import Narcotic Goods Being a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Conversations Recorded Under Listening Device Warrants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether warrants issued under s 219B of the Customs Act were invalid because the nominated AAT member did not personally administer the oath to the person furnishing information in support of the warrant.' 'Whether the recorded conversations were obtained in contravention of subs 219B(1) of the Customs Act and should be inadmissible under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether warrants referring to the commission of "narcotics offences within the meaning of that Division" were invalid for failing to nominate a particular narcotics offence.' 'Whether revocation of an authority to use a listening device rendered unauthorised everything done under that authority before revocation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase "satisfied, by information on oath" in subss 219B(5) and 219B(7) of the Customs Act does not require the issuing Judge or nominated AAT member personally to administer the oath. The information supporting the warrants was on oath even though sworn before NCA officers, and the warrants were not invalid on that ground. The further objections based on lack of specification of a particular narcotics offence and on revocation of an authority also failed, so the recorded conversations were admissible subject to particular objections.

Court Disposition

The challenges to the listening device warrants and authorities failed; subject to particular objections, the recorded conversations were admitted.

Orders

  • ['Subject to ruling on particular objections, the evidence of the conversations obtained as a result of the use of listening devices under warrants issued under the provisions of the Customs Act are admitted.']