- Australia's #1 Legal Community is a community of 10,000+ Australians, just like you, helping each other.
Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
Join us, it only takes a minute:

NSW Criminal Law - Recording Tampered by Police?

Discussion in 'Criminal Law Forum' started by ben smith8, 1 February 2016.

  1. ben smith8

    ben smith8 Member

    1 February 2016
    Likes Received:
    So 6 months or so ago, the police executed a search warrant on my house.

    I was charged with:

    producing class A drugs
    possessing class A drugs
    possessing things used in a crime

    I was interviewed at my house. I have only just recently received a copy of the recording. I specifically remember making certain statements that may have had the entire recording thrown out. The recording was then terminated.

    The recording I have listened to has this part edited out.

    Is it strange for the police to not give me this recording on the day? It had to be requested from the police prosecutors and has only just surfaced recently.

    The recording is in 2 parts, is this normal? The first part stops just before I made my statement. The second part is just the wrap-up.

    So I guess the only evidence I have is the unlikelihood of both of the events occurring in the same case.

    I will look into whether or not I can have the recording analysed to prove this.

    So is this a big deal under Criminal Law or not? Regardless of whether or not what I said on the recording is important, it is still pretty dodgy to alter a recording at all.

    I will literally pay for myself and the police to take a polygraph about this just to prove that they cut the recording short.

    Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.

  2. JS79

    JS79 Well-Known Member

    2 October 2015
    Likes Received:
  3. Serge Gorval

    Serge Gorval Well-Known Member

    2 November 2015
    Likes Received:
    Of course, this is a big deal from an evidentiary perspective. Too long to explain here but you need proper advice.

    As far as the matter is concerned, I imagine you've been served with a brief of evidence? That will extend the prossie case if it hasn't already been referred to DPP.

    In any event, sounds like a s138 issue.
  4. Tim W

    Tim W Lawyer

    28 April 2014
    Likes Received:
    I concur with this advice.
    And yes, this is a big deal.

Share This Page