Latimer v Day [2015] NSWSC 11

Latimer v Day [2015] NSWSC 11

The defendant is entitled to withhold the prescribed surveillance material from pre-trial production to preserve a legitimate forensic purpose in cross-examining the plaintiff and potentially other witnesses, and procedural fairness and the administration of justice justifies suppression until the material is used at trial.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gregory William Latimer; Defendant: Maurice Jerome Day Jr
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Procedural Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application granted (defendant excused from compliance with UCPR r 31.10(1)), suppression orders made, costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Surveillance Evidence, Suppression Orders, Forensic Advantage
Civil Procedure Production of Documents Surveillance Evidence Suppression Orders Forensic Advantage

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory William Latimer

Plaintiff

Maurice Jerome Day Jr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be excused from compliance with UCPR r 31.10(1) requiring pre-trial production of audio-visual recordings to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether suppression of the application, its supporting documents, and transcript is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is entitled to withhold the prescribed surveillance material from pre-trial production to preserve a legitimate forensic purpose in cross-examining the plaintiff and potentially other witnesses, and procedural fairness and the administration of justice justifies suppression until the material is used at trial.

Court Disposition

Application granted (defendant excused from compliance with UCPR r 31.10(1)), suppression orders made, costs reserved.

Orders

  • The defendant is excused from complying with UCPR r 31.10(1).
  • Publication of these orders, the application, affidavit of Paul Baram dated 21 January 2015, and any transcript is suppressed until the prescribed items are shown or tendered at hearing, subject to exceptions for use at hearing.