R v Khalid (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 1921

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Khalid (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 1921 Hearing dates: 9, 10 and 11 November 2015 Date of orders: 18 December 2015 Decision date: 18 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Bellew J Decision: The notice of motion is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where police obtained two search warrants – Where warrants were directed to a nominated officer – Where that officer purported to "sign over" each warrant to another officer – Where officers failed to comply with relevant statutory provision in doing so – Whether statute reflected an intention on the part of the Parliament that there be strict compliance with such provision – Whether statute reflected an intention on the part of the Parliament that the warrant would be invalid in the event that there was non-compliance with such provision – Necessity to strictly construe legislation governing the issue of search warrants – Where evidence did not permit a finding of agency existing between one officer and another CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where police found documents in the course of execution of a search warrant – Where warrant was found to be illegal in light of failure of police to comply with a relevant statutory provision – Where illegality arose from ignorance on the part of police of such provision – Where no mala fides on the part of police – Where failure to comply with the statute was neither conscious nor reckless – Accused charged with a serious offence of being in possession of documents connected with the preparation for a terrorist act knowing of that connection – Evidence obtained in the execution of the warrant important to the Crown case – Probative value of the evidence high – Where failure to comply with statute had no effect on the cogency or reliability of the evidence – Evidence admitted CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where accused charged with being in possession of documents connected with preparation for a terrorist act knowing of that connection – Where Crown sought to lead evidence of a television program in which the accused expressed certain ideology – Where Crown also sought to lead evidence of a video prepared by the accused in which he expressed similar ideology – Whether evidence relevant – Whether probative value was outweighed by the danger of danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence admitted Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities Act) 2002 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Christie v Permewan, Wright and Co Limited [1904] HCA 35; (1904) 1 CLR 693 Doddridge v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 18 Festa v R [2001] HCA 72; (2001) 208 CLR 593 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 Lodhi v R [2007] NSWCCA 360; (2007) 179 A Crim R 470 Nye v NSW [2002] NSWSC 1270 O'Reilly v State Bank of Victoria Commissioners [1983] HCA 47; (1983) 153 CLR 1 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Alquidsi [2015] NSWSC 1615 R v Glennon [1992] HCA 16; (1992) 173 CLR 592 Zaknic Pty Limited v Svelte Corp Pty Limited (1995) 61 FCR 171; (1995) 140 ALR 701 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown - Regina Sulayman Khalid - Accused Representation: Counsel: N Robinson QC and M England - Crown G Foster - Accused