Heathcote v The Queen; Rogers v The Queen; Heathcote v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the police had not complied with certain provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the *Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000* (NSW). The appellants, Heathcote and Rogers, were convicted of various offences following a trial in the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue on appeal to the High Court of Australia was whether the evidence, which included DNA evidence derived from a blood sample taken from Heathcote, had been improperly obtained and should therefore have been excluded from admission at trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from Heathcote's blood sample was admissible, notwithstanding that the police had failed to comply with the requirement to inform him of his right to refuse consent to the taking of the sample, and had failed to obtain a warrant or a court order authorising the taking of the sample. Further, the Court had to consider whether the admission of this evidence, if improperly obtained, had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court applied the principles established in *Bunning v Cross* and *Ridgeway v The Queen*, which govern the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of statutory provisions. It was held that the evidence obtained from Heathcote's blood sample was inadmissible because it was obtained in contravention of statutory requirements designed to protect individual rights. The Court found that the admission of this evidence at trial had resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as it was a crucial part of the prosecution's case and its admission may have influenced the jury's verdict.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions of Heathcote and Rogers, and ordered that a new trial be held for Heathcote.