Event and Time
Event Description
- Context: The case involves a civil proceeding initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the Director") to adduce evidence from a record of interview with Ms. Shanti Gayle Thondan, conducted on November 9, 2017, after a previous criminal trial ruled the entire record as inadmissible due to impropriety by the police.
- Incident: Following a search warrant executed on the Diamond Creek property, a significant quantity of cannabis was discovered, leading to accusations against Ms. Thondan and Mr. Ryan regarding their knowledge of the cultivation activities by tenant Lee Reginald Tangey.
Application and Claims
- Director's Position: The Director seeks to introduce the first 53 questions from the record of the interview, arguing these questions do not contain any impropriety and are essential for the civil proceeding.
- Applicants' Position: Mr. Ryan and Ms. Thondan argue for the exclusion of the entire record of interview, invoking s 138 of the Evidence Act 2008, claiming the impropriety affects all parts of the record.
Judicial Decisions
- The judge ruled that the extract sought to be relied upon by the Director was inadmissible in the present civil proceeding, despite acknowledging earlier rulings in the criminal trial.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Director's Arguments:
- The initial questions before impropriety occurred were relevant and should not be excluded. - The nature of the current civil proceeding differs from the prior criminal trial, thus requiring different consideration under s 138.
- Applicants' Arguments:
- The entirety of the record of interview should be excluded due to institutional impropriety affecting credibility. - Impropriety and fundamental freedoms were significantly impacted by the way evidence was gathered, demanding full exclusion under s 138.