Christensen v The Queen

In *Christensen v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Christensen, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the applicant following his arrest.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of admissions made by the applicant to police after his arrest, despite concerns about the voluntariness of those admissions. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the common law exclusionary rule, which permits the exclusion of evidence obtained in contravention of the law, and the principles governing the admissibility of confessions.

The Court reasoned that the admissions were not rendered inadmissible simply because they were made after an unlawful arrest. Instead, the focus was on whether the admissions were voluntary and whether their admission would be unfair to the applicant. Applying the principles established in cases such as *R v Swaffield* and *DPP (Vic) v Smith*, the Court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the voluntariness of the admissions and had properly exercised their discretion to admit the evidence, finding that its probative value outweighed any potential unfairness.

The appeal was dismissed.