R v Vera [2007] NSWDC 91

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Vera [2007] NSWDC 91

HEARING DATE(S): 02/04/07

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 April 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ

DECISION: See para 14.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - evidence - admissibility - take part in supply of drugs - telephone intercepts - relevance.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Evidence Act 1995

R v Derbas (1993) 66 A Crim R 327 CASES CITED: R v Deng (1996) 91 A Crim R 81 DPP's Reference (No.2 of 1995) 65 SASR 508 Question of Law (No 1 of 1996) (1997) 92 A Crim R 364

PARTIES: Regina Claudio Vera

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0846

COUNSEL: Mr E Balodis - Crown Mr G Grogin - Offender

JUDGMENT

Re Admissibility of Telephone Intercepts

1 The Prosecution brings a charge alleging that the accused "knowingly took part in the supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of cocaine" between the dates alleged. The charge is brought pursuant to s.25 (2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

2 "Supply" is defined in s.3 of this Act and the meaning of "take part in" is set out in s.6 of the Act. Their relationship was discussed in R v Derbas (1993) 66 A Crim R 327 (at 329-30).

3 I accept for the purposes of this judgment that the Crown does not have to prove an actual supply and that preparation for "supply" may constitute "knowingly taking part in supply" (R v Deng (1996) 91 A Crim R 81 (at 95-96): DPP's Reference (No. 2 of 1995) 65 SASR 508).

4 Objection has been taken, by the accused, to parts of two recorded telephone lawful intercepts sought to be tendered by the Crown. Both telephone conversations occurred on 14 January 2006, one at 11.01 pm, the other at 11.05 pm (conversations "A" and "B"). The seven conversations occur between 14 and 24 January 2006. I have excluded two specific parts of the second of such conversations, occurring at 11.05 pm on 14 January 2006. There is no incriminating evidence as such in conversation "A", however the objection, as I understood it, was essentially concerned with its "relevance", given the fact that it has the appearance of an innocent conversation so to speak. I note in relation to this matter that it is proposed by the accused to make admissions that he knew that the other participant in the telephone conversations (Johnny Kazzi) was a drug dealer, that the two men at various times were talking about "cocaine" and that he, the accused, had some association with the use of prohibited drugs.