R v Olivieri; R v Norman [2006] NSWSC 882

R v Olivieri; R v Norman [2006] NSWSC 882

The intercepted telephone calls were admissible as evidence as they were relevant to the Crown's circumstantial case and potentially capable of containing admissions. The publishing of a misleading police press release under a controlled operation authority did not, in the circumstances, amount to such an impropriety or unfairness as to require the evidence be excluded under ss90 or 138 of the Evidence Act. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice or impropriety.

Parties
Accused: Tony Olivieri; Accused: Mark Edward Norman; Prosecution: Regina (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Controlled Operations, Telephone Intercepts, Public Policy, Unfairness, Impropriety
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Controlled Operations Telephone Intercepts Public Policy Unfairness Impropriety

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Olivieri

Accused

Mark Edward Norman

Accused

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recorded telephone conversations were admissible as evidence
  2. 2 Whether police subterfuge via misleading press release affected admissibility
  3. 3 Whether the recordings contained admissions by the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The intercepted telephone calls were admissible as evidence as they were relevant to the Crown's circumstantial case and potentially capable of containing admissions. The publishing of a misleading police press release under a controlled operation authority did not, in the circumstances, amount to such an impropriety or unfairness as to require the evidence be excluded under ss90 or 138 of the Evidence Act. The probative value of the evidence outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice or impropriety.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted