Conway v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Conway against the conviction for murder entered against him in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him to police and a confession.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the appellant's confession into evidence, given the circumstances under which it was obtained. This involved considering the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence, and whether the confession was voluntary. The Court also had to assess whether the admission of the confession, if improperly obtained, had occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Their Honours, Gummow and Hayne JJ, applied the principles established in *Bunning v Cross* and *Ridgeway v The Queen*. They held that the common law exclusionary rule applies where evidence is obtained improperly or illegally. However, the rule is not absolute, and evidence may still be admitted if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. In this instance, the Court found that the statements made by the appellant were not voluntary, as they were made under duress and without full understanding of his rights. Consequently, the admission of the confession was deemed to have occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.