Regina v Le [2004] NSWCCA 82

Regina v Le [2004] NSWCCA 82

The microphone alone, as particularised by the Crown, was not a listening device within the meaning of s 3(1) of the Listening Devices Act 1984 because it lacked independent capacity to record or listen to a private conversation; therefore, findings of guilt and sentences cannot stand and the summonses are to be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Marion Rose Le; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Stated Questions of Law From District Court
Outcome
findings of guilt and sentences set aside; summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Listening Devices, Interpretation of Listening Devices Act 1984, Statutory Defence Under S 5(3)(b)(i)
Criminal Law Listening Devices Interpretation of Listening Devices Act 1984 Statutory Defence Under S 5(3)(b)(i)

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marion Rose Le

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Stated Questions of Law From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether a microphone alone constitutes a 'listening device' under s 3(1) of the Listening Devices Act 1984
  2. 2 whether the appellant used a listening device as defined by s 5(1)(b) of the Act
  3. 3 whether the statutory defence in s 5(3)(b)(i) was established

Ratio Decidendi

The microphone alone, as particularised by the Crown, was not a listening device within the meaning of s 3(1) of the Listening Devices Act 1984 because it lacked independent capacity to record or listen to a private conversation; therefore, findings of guilt and sentences cannot stand and the summonses are to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

findings of guilt and sentences set aside; summonses dismissed

Orders

  • Questions answered: (1) No; (2) No; (3) Yes.
  • Findings of guilt and sentences imposed on the appellant set aside.