R v DRF [2015] NSWCCA 181

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v DRF [2015] NSWCCA 181 Hearing dates: 3 March 2015 Decision date: 07 July 2015 Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Simpson JA at [8]; Schmidt J at [105] Decision: (1) The appeal is allowed;

(2) The ruling of the District Court, that evidence of a conversation between the complainant and the respondent of 12 September 2014 is excluded, is quashed. Catchwords: APPEAL - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3A) - whether exclusion of evidence substantially weakens prosecution case - excluded evidence of statements capable of interpretation as admissions of sexual impropriety made by respondent to complainant - exclusion of evidence significantly weakened Crown case

APPEAL - Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) ("SDA"), s 17 - whether issue of surveillance device warrants should be limited only to offences of a certain type, "serious crime" - SDA specifically confers power to issue warrants in the investigation of indictable offences - respondent charged with indictable offences - warrant issued properly - excluded evidence admissible

APPEAL - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 90 - where Crown concedes complainant was "agent of the state" - R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595 - The Queen v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen [1998] HCA 1; 192 CLR 159 - R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335 - evidence neither unfair nor unreliable - obtaining corroborative evidence in the public interest - public policy - decision to exclude evidence legally flawed - appeal upheld Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3A) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 139, s 294AA Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 90, s 108, s 137 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 34 Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW) Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 3, s 4, s 17, s 19(2) Cases Cited: Carr v The Queen [1988] HCA 47; 165 CLR 314 Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46; 232 CLR 67 Ewen v R [2015] NSWCCA 117 Pavitt v R [2007] NSWCCA 88; 169 A Crim R 452 R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595 R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335 R v DF [2014] NSWDC 149 R v Hebert [1990] 2 SCR 151 R v LDV (No 2) [2013] NSWDC 215 R v Shamouil [2006] NSWCCA 112; 66 NSWLR 228 R v XY [2013] NSWCCA 121; 84 NSWLR 363 Swaffield v R (1996) 88 A Crim R 98 The Queen v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen [1998] HCA 1; 192 CLR 159 Texts Cited: NSW Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 14 November 2007 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Applicant) DRF (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Smith (Applicant) E Ozen (Respondent)