The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) authorises the issue of warrants for the investigation of any indictable offence, not only 'serious crime' such as terrorism or drug importation; the contrary construction in R v LDV (No 2) should not be followed. Evidence of a covertly recorded conversation between a complainant and an accused, obtained under a lawfully issued surveillance device warrant, is not rendered unfair under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) merely because the complainant was acting at the behest of police and the accused had previously declined to be interviewed, where there was no coercion and the recording enhanced reliability. However, the question whether particular conduct by a complainant equipped with a surveillance device (such as exploiting the accused's vulnerability or using deliberately ambiguous language) could render the evidence unfair was expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.