Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No. 1 of 2017

This matter concerned a reference by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to the High Court of Australia regarding the interpretation of section 4M of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and its application to the admissibility of evidence obtained by federal police officers. The DPP sought clarification on whether a failure to comply with the requirement that an arrest be made by a federal police officer in uniform or by producing evidence of identity could render evidence obtained following that arrest inadmissible.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a breach of section 4M of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) automatically rendered evidence obtained subsequent to an unlawful arrest inadmissible, or whether the court retained a discretion to admit such evidence. This involved considering the relationship between the statutory requirement for lawful arrest and the common law exclusionary rule concerning improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The High Court held that a failure to comply with section 4M of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) does not, of itself, render evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest inadmissible. Instead, the court affirmed that the common law discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence remains applicable. This discretion requires a balancing of the competing interests of the public in securing convictions and the public in ensuring that law enforcement officers act in accordance with the law. The court emphasised that the admission or exclusion of evidence in such circumstances is a matter for the trial judge's discretion, to be exercised by weighing the probative value of the evidence against the degree of impropriety in its acquisition.