Event and Time
Event Description
The applicants, Khalil and Valdes, are charged with conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and dealing with proceeds of crime. They are set to face trial on 26 April 2022. The prosecution's case relies on evidence obtained through listening devices and telephone intercepts, authorized by warrants from the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on application by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Pre-trial, the applicants sought to exclude this surveillance evidence under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2008.
Application and Claims
- Applicants' Claims:
- Sought exclusion of surveillance evidence due to allegedly illegal pre-trial searches. - Argued that improprieties occurred in the supporting affidavit for the warrants; specifically, the removal of the word "covert" from the affidavit which supposedly altered the context of the police inspection.
- Prosecution's Claims:
- Countered that the evidence was lawfully obtained and the removal of "covert" did not imply impropriety in the obfuscation of information. - Emphasized that the evidence was critical for the prosecution and that the claims of trespass and impropriety were unfounded.
Judicial Decisions
- Judge McInerney denied the application for exclusion of the surveillance evidence on 11 March 2022. The applicants then sought leave to appeal against this ruling, arguing that the judge's conclusions regarding legality and impropriety were in error.
---
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Claim of Trespass:
- The applicants argued that Officer Hall was a trespasser during a rental inspection conducted on the property, rendering observations unlawful. - Allegation of impropriety that Officer Hall's identity was misrepresented during the inspection by being introduced as Ms. Ristic's staff member.