Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 18] [2008] NSWSC 1440

Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 18] [2008] NSWSC 1440

Section 18 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 is not a law that permits the prosecution to make an averment within the meaning of s 13.6 Criminal Code Act 1995, and an evidentiary certificate issued under s 18 is not an averment. The literal interpretation of s 13.6 is clear and does not extend to certificates prepared by telecommunications officers for formal matters. Accordingly, the application to exclude the certificates is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application – Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application refused; motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['evidentiary Certificates' 'averments' 'interpretation of S 13.6 Criminal Code Act 1995' 's 18 Telecommunications (interception) Act 1979']
['criminal Law'] ['evidentiary Certificates' 'averments' 'interpretation of S 13.6 Criminal Code Act 1995' 's 18 Telecommunications (interception) Act 1979']

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 Application – Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidentiary certificates issued under s 18(2) of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 are precluded by s 13.6 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 because they constitute averments in offences directly punishable by imprisonment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 18 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 is not a law that permits the prosecution to make an averment within the meaning of s 13.6 Criminal Code Act 1995, and an evidentiary certificate issued under s 18 is not an averment. The literal interpretation of s 13.6 is clear and does not extend to certificates prepared by telecommunications officers for formal matters. Accordingly, the application to exclude the certificates is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The order sought in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion of 13 May 2008 is refused.' 'The motion is dismissed.']