Clarke v The Queen; Athanasi v The Queen; Cavkic v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during searches conducted under s 32 of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the proper application of the exclusionary rule under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The appellants, Clarke, Athanasi, and Cavkic, were convicted of various offences following the seizure of evidence during searches of their respective properties. The central dispute revolved around whether the searches were lawful and, if not, whether the evidence obtained should have been excluded by the trial judges.

The High Court was required to determine whether the searches conducted under s 32 of the *Crimes Act* were lawful, given that the police officers did not have reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to an indictable offence was concealed on the premises. Further, the Court had to consider whether, if the searches were unlawful, the evidence obtained should have been admitted under s 138 of the *Evidence Act*, which requires a balancing of the desirability of admitting the evidence against the undesirability of improperly obtained evidence.

The High Court held that the searches were unlawful because the police officers lacked the necessary reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to an indictable offence was concealed on the premises. The Court clarified that the "reasonable grounds" requirement in s 32 necessitates an objective assessment of the information available to the police officer at the time of the search, not merely a subjective belief. Applying s 138, the Court found that the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in contravention of the law outweighed the desirability of admitting it, particularly given the nature of the illegality and the absence of compelling reasons for admission.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the evidence obtained from the unlawful searches be excluded.