De Belin (First Applicant) v The Queen (Director of Public Prosecutions); (Respondent); Sinclair (Second Applicant) v The Queen (Director of Public Prosecutions) (Respondent) [2020] NSWDC 487

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: De Belin (First Applicant) v The Queen (Director of Public Prosecutions); (Respondent); Sinclair (Second Applicant) v The Queen (Director of Public Prosecutions) (Respondent) [2020] NSWDC 487 Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 February 2020; 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 June 2020; 9, 31 July 2020. Date of orders: 28 August 2020 Decision date: 28 August 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: A Haesler SC DCJ Decision: 1. Refuse orders sought in the Notices of Motion. 2. Listed for trial - 2 November 2020 at Wollongong District Court; 3. Readiness hearing and DC Practice Note 19 compliance - 7 September 2020; 4. Pre-trial mention - 27 October 2020. Catchwords: CRIME – Trial - sexual intercourse without consent - two accused - multiple counts - pre-trial application – permanent stay application - jury empanelment delayed – further delay due to COVID 19 pandemic precautions - suppression order to protect possible disclosure of legal professional privilege. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - procedures designed to protect legal professional privilege - two prosecution teams engaged - suppression orders- non-publication of pre-trial proceedings required - special arrangements for publication of judgment - matters containing legal professional privilege in separate Addendums - restrictions of access to whole of judgment to judicial officers and staff and nominated persons in the ODPP and Crown Prosecutors – applicants to have access to whole of judgment except Addendums particular to the other applicant's legal professional privilege. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – pre-trial application - permanent stay - search warrant executed after trial dates confirmed - seizure of accused's phones and computers - access to private communications- potential access to legal professional privilege - was there gross unlawfulness by police and prosecution – actual use by police of privileged material - potential use of privileged material - legality of search warrants - validity of search warrants - can human right protections be read into Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act - right to privacy - right to silence - protection of legal professional privilege - prosecution duty of disclosure – alleged breach of that duty - application of principle. EVIDENCE – privilege - whether legal professional privilege breached - whether investigators had access to legal professional privilege - whether prosecution team had access to legal professional privilege- extent of use of privilege by investigators - extent of derivative use of legal professional privilege – extent of any dissemination of legal professional privilege. EVIDENCE – use of Cellebrite technology to gather records and organise evidence. EVIDENCE – search warrants – legality of warrant- legality of process for obtaining warrant - breach of right to silence – access gained to legal professional privilege- absence of police protocols - ignorance of Law Society Commissioner of Police protocols - application of the companion rule. Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2000 Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 Rules Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Search warrants & Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) The NSW Police Force Standards of Professional Conduct' - Code of Conduct and Ethics Cases Cited: Abbas v NSW Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWSC 1841 Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson [2014] HCA 13; 88 ALJR 522 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; (2001) 208 CLR 199;. Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17; 247 CLR 345 Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; (1983) 153 CLR 52; Baldwin v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 112 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery [2019] HCA 11; (2019) 93 ALJR 448 Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15 (1994) 179 CLR 427 Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Propend Finance Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 3; (1997) 188 CLR 501 Commonwealth of Australia v Helicopter Resources Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 16; (2020) 94 ALJR 466 Controlled Consultants Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Corporate Affairs [1984] HCA 6; (1984) 156 CLR 385; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hamzy [2019] NSWCA 314; Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20; (2010) 241 CLR 237; Edwards v R [2020] NSWCCA 57 Environment Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd [1993] HCA 74 ;(1993) 178 CLR 477 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gedeon v R [2013] NSWCCA 257; 237 A Crim R 326 George v Rocket [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104. Glencore International AG v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] HCA 26: (2019) 93 ALJR 967 Goldberg v Ng [1995] HCA 39;(1995) 185 CLR 83; Grant v Downs [1976] HCA 63; (1976) 135 CLR 674 Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65; (2001) 75 ALJR 1708 Helton v Allen [1940] HCA 20; (1940) 63 CLR 691 Jago v District Court (NSW) [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23; Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20; (2014) 253 CLR 455 Mallard v The Queen [2005] HCA 68; (2005) 224 CLR 125 Meneses v Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 190 Mickelberg v The Queen (No 3) (1992) 8 WAR 236 Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50; (2011) 245 CLR 456 Neat Holdings [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170 NSW Food Authority v Nutricia Australia Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCCA 252: (2008) 72 NSWLR 456 NSW v Robinson [2019] HCA 46 Potter v Minehan (1908) 7 CLR 277 R v Day [2017] HCA 2 R v Derby Magistrates Court Ex p. B [1996] AC 487 R v Edwards (2009) 83 ALJR 717; [2009] HCA 20 R v Grant [2005] EWCA 1089; [2006] QB 60 R v McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76 R v Seller; R v McCarthy [2015] NSWCCA 76 R v Tillett; Ex parte Newton (1969) 14 FLR 10 R v WRC [2003] NSWCCA 394; (2003) 59 NSWLR 273; Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251; Ronen v R (2004) NSW CCA 67 Rowell v Larter (1986) 6 NSWLR 21 Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14 Sorby v The Commonwealth [1983] HCA 10 ; (1983) 152 CLR 281 Strickland (a pseudonym) v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (2018) 93 ALJR 1; [2018] HCA 53 Tozer Kemsley v Colliers Interstate Transport (1955-56) 94 CLR 384 TS v R [2014] NSWCCA 174 Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378; Warren v Attorney General for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10; [2012] 1 AC 22 Whitehorn v The Queen [1983] HCA 42; (1983) 152 CLR 657 Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509; X7 v NSW Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29; (2013) 248 CLR 92 X7 v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 273; (2014) 292 FLR 57 Texts Cited: Coercive questioning after charge, S Donaghue, (2000) Vl 28 Federal Law Review 22 Criminal Practice and Procedure, Butterworths, Howie and Johnson [21s 48.40] p. 625,570. Cross on Evidence, 10th Aust. Ed (2015) Cross on Evidence, JD Heydon, [25090] 'Privilege against Self-incrimination', March 2020 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jack De Belin (First Applicant) Callan Sinclair (Second Applicant) The Queen (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Campbell SC and Mr E Anderson (First Applicant) Mr C Smith SC (Second Applicant) Mr C Young, Crown Prosecutor (Respondent)