Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v JM

The Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial. The dispute centred on whether certain evidence, obtained by the Australian Federal Police, was admissible against the respondent, JM, who was facing charges under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth).

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence in question was obtained in contravention of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), specifically concerning the powers of arrest and search conferred upon officers of the Australian Federal Police. The central legal question was whether the evidence, if obtained unlawfully, should nonetheless be admitted under the provisions of the *Crimes Act* or the common law.

The Court held that the evidence was obtained in contravention of the *Crimes Act*. However, applying the principles established in *Bally v The Queen* and *Loveridge v The Queen*, the Court found that the evidence was admissible. The reasoning focused on the distinction between evidence obtained in contravention of a law and evidence obtained by means of an unlawful act. The Court concluded that the evidence was not obtained by means of an unlawful act, and therefore, the exclusionary rule did not apply. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Federal Court was set aside.