SEARCH
Justinian News

Lehrmann v The Commonwealth and Corruption Concealment Commission ... Here's Brucie's Originating Application seeking legai aid funding for the investigation into "frivolous, 'James Bond' like allegations that the Applicant used 'official' information (being French submarine secrets) gathered on the night of 26 March 2019 for financial, professional and personal purposes, among other things ... More >> 

Politics Media Law Society

My Role in Gough's Downfall ... Reporter-at-Large … Scoops that flushed out the deceit behind the Dismissal … Big anniversary chinwag in Canberra on November 11 … The combined forces of Kerr, Ellicott and cousin Garfield … Constitutional manipulation … Maurice Byers to the rescue ... Read more >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Know one, purl one ... Iron Lady of legal rectitude endorses Gageler ... The chief justice wants judges on the straight and narrow ... The cardboard cutout model of legislative supremacy ... The evils of judicial activism ... Procrustes on the dance floor with the Legislative-Judicial Foxtrot ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


AI at work ... The Epstein Files ... What a resurrected Christopher Hitchens says about Trump and Epstein ... Video >> 

 

Justinian's Bloggers

Berlusconi's dream world ... Revenge politics in Italy ... Independence of prosecutors under attack ... Constitutional assault ... The years of lead ... Investigations reopened into old murders ... High drama at Milan's Leoncavallo ... Rome correspondent Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 

"If we’re only picking people who have got completely lily-white records then we’ll be missing out on a lot of people that can contribute to public life.

NSW Premier Chris Minns, endorsing Mal Lanyon, his pick for Police Commissioner, whose contributions to public life include shouting drunken obsenities at a paramedic who came to his aid, and commandeering a police launch for private entertainment on New Year's eve ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Intriguing submissions ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... The scale of the sub-rosa intrigue ... Plenty to think about ... Ginger Snatch reports ... Read more >> 

Justinian's archive

News Desk Special ... Angelic death notices from the bar ... Soapy slips on FOI changes ... Unusual interlocutory costs order for Chris Dale ... Judge ticks off Abbott in letters' page ... Knock About's festive salute to the coppers ... 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.