Clayton v The Queen; Hartwick v The Queen

Clayton v The Queen and Hartwick v The Queen were appeals to the High Court of Australia concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained by police. The central dispute revolved around whether evidence derived from an accused's confession, made after an unlawful arrest, should be excluded from trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the admission of evidence obtained in consequence of an unlawful act by police, specifically an unlawful arrest followed by a confession, was an abuse of process. This involved considering the principles governing the exclusion of evidence obtained in contravention of the law, particularly in light of the High Court's previous decision in *R v Swaffield*.

The Court held that the admission of evidence obtained in consequence of an unlawful act by police does not automatically constitute an abuse of process. Instead, the court must exercise its discretion to exclude such evidence if its admission would be unfair to the accused. This involves a balancing exercise, weighing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, and considering the seriousness of the unlawful conduct by the police. The Court affirmed that the discretion to exclude evidence is a broad one, and the circumstances of each case must be carefully examined.

In both appeals, the High Court found that the trial judges had erred in their approach to the admissibility of the confessions. The convictions were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the respective trial courts for a new trial.