Behrends v The Queen

In *Behrends v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Behrends, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence of a police interview with the applicant, conducted after he had been cautioned but before he was formally charged, was wrongly admitted at trial. This raised questions about the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence, and whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the interview.

Gaudron and Gummow JJ held that the evidence of the interview was admissible. Their Honours reasoned that the common law exclusionary rule, which permits the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, is not absolute. It requires a balancing of the competing interests of the Crown in obtaining evidence and the individual's right to be free from unlawful intrusion. In this instance, the interview, while conducted before formal charging, was not obtained in circumstances that rendered it unfair or oppressive to the applicant. The caution administered was sufficient to inform the applicant of his rights, and there was no indication that the interview was conducted in a manner that would justify its exclusion on public policy grounds.

The appeal was dismissed.