Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Holding onto Hope: Gina Rinehart's Bleak House ... Seeking chunks of the huge iron ore pit, Hope Downs ... Tracing the tangled Wright, Hancock, Rinehart litigation ... Allegations of fraud against the family trust ... Manouvering ... Tax "advice" ... Shifting vesting date ... Money, the root of unhappiness ... Anthony-James Kanaan reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Rupert World ... Lord Moloch’s pal Doug the Diva – driving Washington spare … News UK’s model for unionism … What next for the Washington Post? … Concealed coal lobbyists running an anti-Teal campaign … More corruption busting for Stinging Nettle … The litigation industry spawned by Lehrmann ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Party time for Dicey ... Heydon's book - a pathway to rehabilitation ... The predatory man and the clever intellect - all wrapped up in the one person ... Academic tome and cancel agenda ... Despite the plaudits the record of abuse doesn't vanish ... Book launch with young associates at a safe distance ... Procrustes thinks out loud ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Debbie Does Damien ... Mortimer's first public interview as CJ ... ABC's Law Report ... The ins and out of live streaming and the media's access to documents ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

Conclave Part 2: Return of the Prodigal ... Vatican fraudster returns ... Fly in the Conclave ointment ... Claims to have been forgiven by Pope Francis ... Doubts about his entitlement to vote ... What can go wrong? ... Silvana Olivetti reports from Rome ... Read more >> 

"We're in unchartered territory here. A Pope hasn't died before during an Australian election campaign."  

Jane Norman, National Affairs Correspondent, ABC News ... April 21, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Letter from Rome ... Judges on strike ... Too much "reform" ... Berlusconi legacy ... Referendum on the way ... Constitutional court inflames the Meloni regime with decision on boat people ... Insults galore ... Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Tea is for Tippy ... Life of a tiffstaff ... Bright, ambitious and, when it comes to the crucial things, hopeless ... Milking the glory of the gig ...  Introducing Tippy, our new blogger filing from within the concrete cage at Queens Square ... From Justinian's Archive, March 15, 2010 ...  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.