Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 460
The tender was rejected because the proposed evidence about the purported warrant was outside Federal Agent Da Re's statement and, in any event, the photocopied document with obliterations could not on its face be described as a warrant issued by a judge of the Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 May 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation Proceedings / Admissibility Ruling on Tender of Document
- Outcome
- Tender rejected.
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility' 'listening Devices Act, 1984' 'purported Warrant' 'conditional Exhibit' 'tender Objection']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Admissibility Ruling on Tender of Document
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the document purporting to be warrant 308 of 1995 should be admitted through Federal Agent Marzio Da Re.' 'Whether evidence could be led from Federal Agent Marzio Da Re outside the terms of his statement.' 'Whether the photocopied document with obliterations could on its face be described as a warrant issued by a judge of the Court.']
Ratio Decidendi
The tender was rejected because the proposed evidence about the purported warrant was outside Federal Agent Da Re's statement and, in any event, the photocopied document with obliterations could not on its face be described as a warrant issued by a judge of the Court.
Court Disposition
Tender rejected.
Orders
- ['Tender of the document presently forming part of Exhibit 162, purporting to be warrant 308 of 1995, rejected.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 460 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 May 2000
JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)
PARTIES : v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1
I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Admissibility - Listening Devices Act, 1984 - purported "warrant" - tender rejected - T6500 DECISION : See paragraph 4
DLJT: 163 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 460
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996
JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
THURSDAY 26 MAY 2000
JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)
v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (Admissibility - Listening Devices Act, 1984 - purported " warrant " - tender rejected - T6500) 1 HIS HONOUR: It is sought to tender through Federal Agent Marzio Da Re, presently giving evidence, the document presently part of Exhibit 162, which was admitted conditionally earlier this week, insofar as it purports to be warrant 308 of 1995, issued apparently on 4 December 1995 by Grove J. 2 Objection to the tender is founded on two bases; one there is no mention in Federal Agent Da Re's statement of this warrant, thus it is sought to lead evidence from him outside the terms of his statement. I have ruled that that is not an available course. 3 The second basis upon which I propose to reject the tender of that document presently forming part of Exhibit 162, is on its face it cannot be described as a warrant issued by a judge of this court. It is a photocopy of a document with obliterations, and I shall extract from 162 that which is said to be warrant 308 of 1995. 4 I think it important to note that this document, together with others, was provided by the Police Integrity Commissioner to the defendant pursuant to a request, and was accompanied by a s 56(4) certificate. I have not been informed that any of this material, in particular this "warrant," has been otherwise produced to this court pursuant to an order of the Court constituted, for example, by a subpoena. ***********
Last Modified: 09/25/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.