CITATION: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 450 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S): 25 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE: 25 May 2000 PARTIES :
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1
COUNSEL : I Barker Q.C.
R Stitt Q.C.
M R Hall
(Plaintiff)
J S Wheelhouse
(Defendant)SOLICITORS: Phillips Fox
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)CATCHWORDS: Admissibility of Amended Notice under s 19 Listening Devices Act 1984 - Police Integrity Commission Act, 1996 - T6485 LEGISLATION CITED: Listening Devices Act 1984
Police Integrity Commission Act 1996DECISION: See paragraph 8
DLJT: 161
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 450
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LISTNo. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
Thursday 25 MAY 2000
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT (Admissibility of Amended Notice under s 19 Listening Devices Act, 1984 - Police Integrity Commission Act, 1996 - T6485)
1 HIS HONOUR: There is presently giving evidence Peter Raymond French, in respect of whose testimony there is a certificate forming part of Exhibit 173. 2 The certificate has been signed by the Police Integrity Commissioner under s56(4)(c) of the Police Integrity Commission Act. He has purported to certify that witnesses may give evidence in the proceedings in accordance to their statements. 3 There has been handed to me a copy of the statement apparently made on 23 May 2000, which I will have marked for identification (MFI 187). 4 The witness has been shown a document in accordance with the ultimate paragraph of that statement, in which he has said a notice in accordance with s 19(1) of the Listening Devices Act in relation to certain specified warrants was signed by him. He has identified it as a document with its heading, his initials and signature on the last page. 5 I do not understand Detective French to have sworn on oath that this is the Notice that he signed in accordance with the last paragraph of his statement. There is a very good reason for that: the document that has been handed to him by examining counsel contains five pages that are completely obliterated, and one page that is partially obliterated. There is no way this officer can swear that the document handed to him in the witness box is that which he said is the Report referred to in his statement. 6 The Police Integrity Commissioner has issued the certificate to which I have referred, and without more its effect appears to be clearly to circumscribe the testimony of this and other officers by reference to their statements. 7 For reasons I have given in relation to the pieces of paper that have been handed to the officer in the course of his evidence in chief, he has not given and cannot give, evidence in accordance with the certificate as it relates to his statement. I reject the tender.
***********
Last Modified: 09/25/2000
Details
- AGLC
- Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 450
- Case
- [2000] NSWSC 450
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited arose in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Marsden, sought to have an amended notice served on the defendant, Amalgamated Television Services, which had previously been refused by the Court. Marsden argued that the amended notice was necessary to address issues that had arisen during the course of the investigation. The legal issues at hand were the admissibility of the amended notice under section 19 of the Listening Devices Act 1984 and whether the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 applied to this situation. The court had to determine if the amended notice could be admitted and if so, under what circumstances.
The court examined the legal framework provided by the Listening Devices Act 1984 and the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996. It considered whether the amended notice complied with the requirements of the Act and whether the Commission's powers under the 1996 Act could be invoked to permit the amended notice. The court also weighed the public interest in the investigation against the potential prejudice to the defendant caused by the amended notice. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the amended notice could be admitted under section 19 of the Listening Devices Act 1984. The court found that the amended notice was necessary to address the new issues that had emerged during the investigation, and that the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 did not preclude the admissibility of the amended notice.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case. It found that the amended notice was procedurally fair and necessary to achieve the aims of the investigation. The court held that the amended notice could be admitted, provided that it was served in accordance with the provisions of the Listening Devices Act 1984. The court also emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the defendant with the need for a thorough investigation. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legislation and the particular facts of the case. The court's ruling allowed the amended notice to proceed, ensuring that the investigation could continue effectively.
The court examined the legal framework provided by the Listening Devices Act 1984 and the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996. It considered whether the amended notice complied with the requirements of the Act and whether the Commission's powers under the 1996 Act could be invoked to permit the amended notice. The court also weighed the public interest in the investigation against the potential prejudice to the defendant caused by the amended notice. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the amended notice could be admitted under section 19 of the Listening Devices Act 1984. The court found that the amended notice was necessary to address the new issues that had emerged during the investigation, and that the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 did not preclude the admissibility of the amended notice.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the case. It found that the amended notice was procedurally fair and necessary to achieve the aims of the investigation. The court held that the amended notice could be admitted, provided that it was served in accordance with the provisions of the Listening Devices Act 1984. The court also emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the defendant with the need for a thorough investigation. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legislation and the particular facts of the case. The court's ruling allowed the amended notice to proceed, ensuring that the investigation could continue effectively.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.