Non-compliance with s 356H(9) of the Crimes Act 1900 (failure to provide written verification of a telephone detention warrant application) does not invalidate the warrant under s 356L(5), and does not attract s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 because the contravention post-dates the obtaining of the evidence. Non-compliance with s 356M(1)(b) (failure to give summary of Part 10A) constitutes an impropriety within s 138, but where the non-compliance is attributable to inexperience rather than deliberate or reckless conduct, the s 138 balancing exercise may favour admission. The Court is divided on whether the seriousness of the offence charged under s 138(3)(c) weighs in favour of admission (Spigelman CJ and Blanch AJ) or may in some cases warrant more rigorous insistence on compliance (Simpson J).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 40 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 40 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.