SEARCH
Justinian News

Time's Up for Naughty Nathan ... Recommendation that horrible NSW solicitor be derolled ... Misuse of online funding campaigns ... Spraying ripe and abusive language ... Trolling Robert Beech-Jones ... So unfit and improper as to be beyond reeducation ... Anthony Kanaan reports ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society

Perils of the Defamatorium ... Lovely Linda Reynolds’ “victory” leaves her underwater … Politics, sex, law, and money … Injuries galore … The art of Tottling … Where’s the serious harm? … Trust me … Jurisdictional backwater ... Read more >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Act of gracelessness ... Kathleen Folbigg's miserable ex gratia payout ... Comparable awards in other miscarriage cases ... Weasel words from the NSW Premier ... Need for a proper system of compensation assessment ... Procrustes in a lather ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects ... Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me. And I just want to say that I find, I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now."

Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell interviewed by Trump's former lawyer Todd Blanche, now Deputy Attorney General ... July 25, 2025. Interviews released by DOJ, August 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and Betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... Plenty to think about ... Court reporter Ginger Snatch files ... Read more >> 

 

 

Justinian's archive

The Tamil Times ... The corruption wars ... Blitzkrieg from The Australian's legal affairs man ... Campaigns to sink ICAC and 18C ... Battles lost in the trenches ... Where are they now? ... Extravagant fulminations ... From Justinian's Archive, April 8, 2017 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« High class racketeering | Main | Queue See »
Saturday
May182013

Fish shop phone furore

Barrister and solicitor were parties to secret recording of mobile phone conversation while a trial was in progress ... Impropriety ... Application to tender recording rejected ... Breach of Surveillance Devices Act and Evidence Act ... Alix Piatek reports 

Fish shop case and improperly recorded phone conversation

NSW Dizzo Court Judge Philip Taylor had some strong things to say about the roles of a solicitor and a barrister in what purports to be the illegal recording of a mobile phone conversation.  

"The gravity of the impropriety of the secret recording is increased by the circumstances of this case in that it involved counsel and solicitor and it involved an impropriety in relation to the administration of justice as it concerned proceedings then being heard." 

Sydney barrister Robert Newell and solicitor Leonardo Murintini acted for Serge Wachtenheim and his company, who were sued by De Costi Seafoods and the De Costi franchise operation for monies owed by a Dee Why fish shop. 

The trial ran for 75 days and De Costi was successful in the main claim and defeated a cross-claim alleging damages for misleading conduct. 

The defendants/cross-claimants sought to tender a recording of a mobile phone conversation between a witness, David Shnider, and barrister Newell (second floor Wentworth). 

Shnider was giving evidence in-chief at the time the application was made. 

The phone conversation took place in a District Court conference room in John Maddison Tower six weeks into the trial. 

There were a number of people present, including Wachtenheim, James Turner (a witness), solicitor Murintini and Murtini's wife, Faith. 

Wachtenheim made the call to Shnider and after they had spoken briefly he handed the phone to Newell. 

According to Turner's affidavit Wachtenstein said: 

"David I am here with my barrister and solicitor and with some other people. Robert wants to speak to you. David, do you mind if I put you on loudspeaker so we can all hear you, is that alright with you?" 

An unidentified person in the room said: 

"It might be good if we made notes of what David is saying." 

Turner recorded the conversation on his Samsung S2. When the recording was finished Wachtenstein downloaded the conversation from the mobile phone to his digital recorder. 

Judge said witness not told he was on speakerphone

Judge Taylor rejected the application to tender the recording. He accepted Shnider's evidence that he "lacked trust in Mr Newell and Mr Muriniti". 

Neither Newell nor Muriniti gave evidence, which the judge described as "significant". 

Shnider said that he did not know that he was on speakerphone. 

The judge said: 

"In all these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the recording happened on a whim of Mr Turner. The circumstances (and the unexplained absence of any evidence from Mr Newell, Mr Muriniti or Mr Wachtenheim) persuade me that the matter was planned before the call was made, and that Mr Newell, Mr Muriniti and Mr Wachtenheim were all aware of the plan. I prefer Mr Shnider's evidence, and accept that he was not told about, and did not consent to, either the mobile phone being on loudspeaker or that 'other people' were able to hear the conversation." 

Stephen Stanton, for De Costi, pointed out that Turner was still under cross-examination and should not have been present discussing evidence with the cross-claimants. 

Wachtenheim had not yet given evidence and he too should not have been having discussions with a witness. 

Taylor DCJ agreed: 

"The impropriety of counsel and solicitor in having Mr Turner and Mr Wachtenheim present at the time of the conversation with Mr Shnider on loudspeaker is a basis for exclusion." 

He found that the conversation constituted a breach of s.7 of the Surveillance Devices Act NSW for recording a private conversation; and that both Newell and Muriniti acted improperly in allowing Turner and Wachtenheim to hear the conversation and record it without Shniders' consent, both a breach of s.138(1) of the Evidence Act NSW

However, he didn't think that any remedy would be likely in respect of the "inappropriate conduct". 

The application to tender the conversation was rejected during the trial last year, but the reasons have just been published (May 3). 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.