Collateral challenge to the validity of telecommunication interception warrants in criminal proceedings remains limited to defects on the face of the warrant; the sufficiency of material placed before the issuing authority cannot be examined. The prosecution's duty of disclosure does not extend to material underlying interception warrants because such material cannot be relevant to any issue at trial. An accused cannot circumvent these constraints by recharacterising a challenge to warrant validity as an impropriety challenge under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The appropriate remedy for alleged non-compliance with the duty of disclosure is an order that the prosecutor consider the material and communicate an opinion, not an order for production to the accused.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 35 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 35 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.