When intercepted telephone conversations form part of the prosecution case, the test for legitimate forensic purpose should not be applied in an unduly restrictive manner. The nature of intercepted communications — where it is common experience that conversations beyond those immediately in issue must be considered to get their true flavour — is sufficient to warrant production of all intercepted calls where the accused raises issues about the innocent use of the phone or innocent explanations for apparently incriminating conversations. The accused is not required to identify with particularity which calls might assist. A second subpoena seeking the same documents as a first subpoena that was set aside, without material change of circumstances, may be set aside as an abuse of process even if expressed in different terms.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.