Edwards v The Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,KEANE, EDELMAN, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJSCOTT EDWARDS  APPELLANTANDTHE QUEEN  RESPONDENTEdwards v The Queen[2021] HCA 28Date of Hearing: 19 May 2021Date of Judgment: 6 October 2021S235/2020ORDERAppeal dismissed. On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South WalesRepresentationJ M Morris SC with T M Ower and E M O'Neill for the appellant (instructed by Cardillo Gray Partners)L A Babb SC with J E Davidson for the respondent (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSEdwards v The QueenCriminal practice – Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Prosecution's duty of disclosure in ss 141 and 142 of Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – Where appellant's mobile phone seized by police upon arrest – Where police made copy of data on mobile phone ("Cellebrite Download") – Where prosecution informed appellant's lawyers of existence of Cellebrite Download prior to trial but did not serve copy – Whether prosecution failed to give full and proper pre‑trial disclosure required by s 142 – Whether Cellebrite Download contained material falling within s 142(1)(i) or s 142(1)(k) – Whether forensic value of contents of Cellebrite Download for appellant's case rose above level of speculation – Whether non-provision of Cellebrite Download to appellant caused miscarriage of justice. Words and phrases – "cellebrite", "cellebrite download", "disclosure", "good prosecutorial practice", "miscarriage of justice", "pre-trial disclosure", "prosecutorial duty of disclosure", "relevant to the reliability of a...