Bakir v The Queen; Hill v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during a search of the applicants' homes. The applicants, Bakir and Hill, were charged with various offences relating to the possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition. The central dispute revolved around whether the search warrants, which were issued based on information obtained from a confidential informant, were validly executed. The applicants argued that the evidence seized during the searches should have been excluded from trial on the grounds that the warrants were defective and the searches unlawful. The matter proceeded to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the search warrants were validly issued under the relevant legislation, specifically concerning the sufficiency of the information provided to the issuing officer to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting the existence of the prohibited items. A further issue was whether, even if the warrants were defective, the evidence obtained should have been admitted under the proviso to section 8 of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) or under the common law.

The Court held that the information before the issuing officer was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting the existence of prohibited firearms and ammunition at the applicants' residences. The informant's information was not sufficiently corroborated, and the issuing officer had not adequately considered the reliability of the informant or the basis of their knowledge. Consequently, the search warrants were invalidly issued, and the searches were unlawful. The Court then considered the admissibility of the evidence. Applying the principles established in *Bally v The Queen*, the Court found that the admission of the unlawfully obtained evidence would have been unfair to the applicants and would have had a prejudicial effect that outweighed its probative value. Therefore, the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The High Court ordered that the matters be remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a new trial.