Hargraves v The Queen; Stoten v The Queen; Handlen v The Queen; Paddison v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the police had acted unlawfully. The applicants, Hargraves, Stoten, Handlen, and Paddison, were all convicted of various offences, and their appeals to the High Court of Australia arose from the admission of evidence that they argued should have been excluded due to the unlawful conduct of the police. The central question was whether the common law exclusionary rule, which permits the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, had been abrogated by statute.

The High Court was required to determine whether the provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth), specifically section 138, had displaced the common law power of courts to exclude evidence obtained in contravention of the law. The applicants contended that the common law rule remained in force and that the evidence against them, obtained through unlawful police actions, should have been excluded under that rule. The Crown argued that section 138 of the *Crimes Act* provided the exclusive framework for the admissibility of such evidence, and that under that section, the evidence was admissible.

The Court held that section 138 of the *Crimes Act* did not abrogate the common law exclusionary rule. It reasoned that the language of section 138, which provides that evidence "shall not be admitted" if it was obtained improperly or illegally, was not intended to be exhaustive of the circumstances in which evidence might be excluded. Instead, the Court found that section 138 represented a codification of the common law principles relating to the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, but it did not remove the inherent power of the courts to exclude such evidence where justice required it. The Court affirmed that the common law power to exclude evidence, even if admissible under section 138, remains available to prevent unfairness to the accused.

The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The matters were remitted to the respective trial courts for a new trial, with the direction that the evidence obtained unlawfully should be excluded unless the Crown could establish that its admission would not be unfair to the accused.