Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the applicants, Green and Quinn, were detained and questioned without legal representation. The applicants were convicted of serious offences, and their appeals to the High Court of Australia arose from the admission of evidence obtained during their respective periods of detention.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the applicants during their unlawful detention should have been excluded. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights, particularly the right to legal advice and the privilege against self-incrimination, and the discretion of the trial judge to exclude such evidence.

The Court, comprising French CJ and Crennan J, affirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of an accused's rights may be excluded in the exercise of a judicial discretion. This discretion is informed by considerations of fairness to the accused and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court held that the admission of the evidence in both cases was an error, as the circumstances of the detention and questioning rendered the subsequent admissions unreliable and unfair to the applicants. The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered new trials.