Edwards v The QueenCitation:[2021] HCA 28Before:Kiefel CJ, Keane, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:06 Oct 2021Case Number:S235/2020Read more

Edwards v The QueenCitation:[2021] HCA 28Before:Kiefel CJ, Keane, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:06 Oct 2021Case Number:S235/2020Read more

The prosecution did not fail in its duty of disclosure under s 142 as the Cellebrite Download did not contain material of sufficient forensic value to the appellant's case, and its non-provision did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Prosecution
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Miscarriage of Justice, Prosecutorial Disclosure, Pre Trial Disclosure, Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Miscarriage of Justice Prosecutorial Disclosure Pre Trial Disclosure Forensic 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Prosecution

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution failed to give full and proper pre-trial disclosure as required by s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Cellebrite Download contained material falling within s 142(1)(i) or s 142(1)(k)
  3. 3 Whether the forensic value of the Cellebrite Download for the appellant's case rose above speculation

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution did not fail in its duty of disclosure under s 142 as the Cellebrite Download did not contain material of sufficient forensic value to the appellant's case, and its non-provision did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.