Hatfield v The Queen

Hatfield appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a confession made to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under the common law. This involved considering whether the confession was voluntary and whether its admission would be unfair to the appellant, having regard to the circumstances in which it was made.

The Court applied the principles established in *R v Swaffield* and *Pollard v The Queen*, which require a confession to be voluntary to be admissible. A confession is not voluntary if it is induced by a threat or promise, or if it is made in circumstances where the will of the accused is overborne. The Court found that the confession was not voluntary because the appellant had been subjected to a prolonged period of questioning and had been denied access to legal advice. Consequently, the confession was improperly obtained and should have been excluded from evidence.

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