Gould v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2018] NSWCCA 109

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gould v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2018] NSWCCA 109 Hearing dates: 23 May 2018 Decision date: 04 June 2018 Before: Basten JA at [1]; Johnson J at [72]; Adamson J at [73] Decision: (1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal from the judgment given in the District Court on 11 April 2018.

(2) Dismiss the appeal. Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – interlocutory appeal – rejection of application for stay of trial – evidence gathered under telecommunication interception warrants formed major part of prosecution case against applicant – applicant sought disclosure of documents relied upon by Australian Federal Police when seeking warrant – documents not disclosed – whether prosecutor's general law obligation of disclosure extended to documents underlying warrants – whether trial should have been stayed pending disclosure of documents – whether stay necessary to avoid unfair trial

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – interlocutory appeal – collateral challenge to validity of telecommunication interception warrants – whether challenge limited to invalidity on the face of the warrant – Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69; [1997] HCA 49 applied

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – prosecutor's pre-trial disclosure obligation – scope of obligation – whether obligation broader than legitimate forensic purpose test for evidence sought under subpoena

EVIDENCE – discretionary exclusion of evidence – improperly or illegally obtained evidence – scope of potential challenge to evidence gathered under interception warrant on basis of impropriety – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s138 Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), Sch 1 Constitution, s 75(v) Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 52 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 68A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 35, 43 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), ss 5, 5B, 6E, 6EA, 7, 63, 74; Pt 2.6; Sch 1 Cases Cited: Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; [1984] HCA 85 Allen v Ewing [2017] NSWSC 1696 Attorney-General (NSW) v Chidgey [2008] NSWCCA 65; 182 A Crim R 536 Australian Crime Commission v Marrapodi (2012) 42 WAR 351; [2012] WASCA 103 Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; [1994] HCA 15 Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992] HCA 57 Director of Housing v Sudi (2012) 33 VR 559; [2011] VSCA 266 Flanagan v Australian Federal Police (1996) 60 FCR 149; [1996] FCA 16; 134 ALR 495 Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348; [1995] HCA 26 Inland Revenue Commissioners v Rossminster Ltd [1980] AC 952 Kizon Palmer (1997) 72 FCR 409 Kizon v Palmer (No 2) (1998) 82 FCR 310 Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20 Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307; [1990] HCA 4 McArthur v Williams (1936) 55 CLR 324; [1936] HCA 10 Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; [1989] HCA 28 Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69; [1997] HCA 49 Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 5 of 1999) (2000) 76 SASR 356; [2000] SASC 51 R v Brown (Winston) [1998] AC 367 R v JW (2010) 77 NSWLR 7; [2010] NSWCCA 49 R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746 R v Lipton (2011) 82 NSWLR 123; [2011] NSWCCA 247 R v Petroulias (No. 5) (2006) 217 FLR 334; [2006] NSWSC 1155 R v Petroulias (No. 8) (2007) 175 A Crim R 417; [2007] NSWSC 82 R v Reardon (No 2) (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; [2004] NSWCCA 197 R v Saleam [1999] NSWCCA 86 R v Simmons; R v Moore (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 189 R v Spiteri (2004) 61 NSWLR 369; [2004] NSWCCA 321 Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) v Conolly (2003) 57 NSWLR 310; [2003] NSWSC 327 South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1; [2010] HCA 39 von Arnim v Ellison (2006) 150 FCR 282; [2006] FCAFC 49 Texts Cited: T Game SC and J Roy, "Unifying Principles in Administrative and Criminal Law", N Williams (ed) Key Issues in Public Law (The Federation Press, 2017), Ch 11, p 202. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vanda Russell Gould (Applicant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Mr T Game SC/Ms G Huxley (Applicant) Mr R Maidment QC/Ms N Evans (Respondent)