NSW Police Force v McKellar, Nerida; NSW Police Force v Knight, Mark [2015] NSWLC 8

NSW Police Force v McKellar, Nerida; NSW Police Force v Knight, Mark [2015] NSWLC 8

The methods of installation in s 42 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) include the methods used to gain entry to premises, the use of an assumed identity if applicable, and all relevant steps taken for the purpose of and in the process of installation. Having considered the confidential affidavit and the evidence called by the respondents, the Court found that the proposed cross-examination would disclose protected surveillance device technology or methods of installation, disclosure was not necessary for the respondents' fair trial, the evidence did not establish illegality or impropriety or any basis for a s 138 argument, and the public interest in preserving secrecy or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Public Interest Immunity Application Before Hearing of Serious Drug Related Charges
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['surveillance Device Warrant' 'methods of Installation' 'use of Assumed Identity' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'confidential Affidavit']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'public Interest Immunity' 'surveillance Devices'] ['surveillance Device Warrant' 'methods of Installation' 'use of Assumed Identity' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'procedural Fairness' 'confidential Affidavit']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Public Interest Immunity Application Before Hearing of Serious Drug Related Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed cross-examination of police officers would disclose surveillance device technology or methods of installation within s 42 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).' 'Whether disclosure of the information was necessary for the fair trial of the respondents or in the public interest.' 'Whether the respondents had established a legitimate forensic purpose for cross-examination based on alleged illegality or impropriety under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether public interest immunity should be granted under s 130 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The methods of installation in s 42 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) include the methods used to gain entry to premises, the use of an assumed identity if applicable, and all relevant steps taken for the purpose of and in the process of installation. Having considered the confidential affidavit and the evidence called by the respondents, the Court found that the proposed cross-examination would disclose protected surveillance device technology or methods of installation, disclosure was not necessary for the respondents' fair trial, the evidence did not establish illegality or impropriety or any basis for a s 138 argument, and the public interest in preserving secrecy or...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['Officers Hayes and Tenkate are not required to disclose information of surveillance device technology or methods of installation: s 42(2) of the Act.' 'The publication of information given in these proceedings which could reasonably be expected to reveal details of methods of installation, use of or retrieval of...