COURT EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION
The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Serratore? If so, what action does he propose to take in response to this decision?
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal, which concerns the operation of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act. On 20 September 1995 John Serratore was arrested and charged with the murder of Ms Frances Tizzone. He was refused bail by the police and the Local Court and subsequently applied for bail from the Supreme Court. The matter was then removed to the Court of Appeal to determine whether material intercepted pursuant to a warrant issued under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act could be admitted in evidence in a bail application hearing.
On 11 October this year the Court of Appeal decided that the record of a telephone intercept could not be admitted in evidence on the hearing of a bail application as it is not an exempted proceeding as prescribed under section 5B(a) of the Act. The effect of the Court of Appeal decision is that it limits the circumstances in which evidence may be admitted to matters which are strictly criminal prosecutions. Mr Serratore's bail application was eventually refused by the Supreme Court. However, the proceedings raised more general concerns that persons facing serious charges against whom the principal evidence is contained in telephone intercepts may be released on bail through the inability of the prosecution to demonstrate the severity of the offence and the true strength of the prosecution case.
It appears incongruous to me, as it did to the Court of Appeal, that such information can be made available in a criminal prosecution but not in related bail proceedings. Accordingly, I have today written to the Federal Attorney-General asking him to give urgent consideration to this matter with a view to amending section 5B of the Act at the earliest possible opportunity to include hearings for bail applications. Apart from bail application hearings this decision may affect the proper conduct of other proceedings, such as applications for judicial inquiries into convictions under section 474D of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 and applications for stays on criminal proceedings. I have asked the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, to consider these matters as well.