Conn v The Queen

Conn appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search of Conn's property, which was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth). The appeal also raised questions regarding the proper application of the exclusionary rule in relation to improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from the search was admissible, notwithstanding that the warrant may have been improperly issued. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of the discretion to admit such evidence, and the principles governing the balancing of the probative value of the evidence against the impropriety of its acquisition. The Court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence.

Gummow and Heydon JJ applied the principles established in *Bunning v Cross* and *Ridgeway v The Queen*, which outline the discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Their Honours noted that the discretion to admit such evidence is not unfettered and requires a careful consideration of various factors, including the degree of culpability of the law enforcement officers in obtaining the evidence, the importance of the evidence, and the nature of the offence. The Court found that the trial judge had properly exercised this discretion, having regard to the relevant factors, and that the admission of the evidence did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.