Aston v The Queen- Burnell v The Queen

In *Aston v The Queen* and *Burnell v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered appeals against convictions for murder. The central dispute in both cases concerned the admissibility of confessions made by the appellants to police. The appeals were heard together due to the common legal question they raised regarding the proper application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The High Court was required to determine whether confessions obtained in circumstances where police failed to caution the accused in accordance with statutory requirements, or where the accused were subjected to oppressive questioning, should have been admitted into evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion to exclude such evidence, even if it was relevant and otherwise admissible, to ensure a fair trial.

The Court held that the common law exclusionary rule, which permits a judge to exclude evidence obtained improperly or illegally, is not confined to evidence obtained in contravention of statutory provisions. It extends to evidence obtained by unfair means, including oppressive questioning or where the police have failed to comply with their duty to caution an accused. The discretion to exclude such evidence is a broad one, requiring a balancing of the probative value of the evidence against the unfairness to the accused and the public interest in the administration of justice. In *Aston*, the Court found that the confession was improperly obtained and should have been excluded, leading to the quashing of the conviction. In *Burnell*, while acknowledging the impropriety, the Court held that the confession was not unfairly obtained to the extent that it necessitated exclusion, and therefore the conviction was upheld.