HML v The Queen; SB v The Queen; OAE v The Queen

These three appeals, heard together, concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the accused had been arrested and detained under provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the *Crimes (Traffic and Transport Regulation) Act 1990* (NSW). The central dispute revolved around whether the evidence, primarily consisting of admissions and physical evidence, should have been excluded under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) or under the common law. The High Court of Australia was required to determine the proper application of these exclusionary provisions in the context of police conduct during an arrest and subsequent detention.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were: (1) whether the arrests of the appellants were lawful, and if not, whether the evidence obtained as a result of those arrests should be excluded; (2) whether the detention of the appellants was lawful, and if not, whether the evidence obtained during that detention should be excluded; and (3) the proper application of the discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and at common law, considering the factors outlined in *L v The Queen*.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the arrests of the appellants were lawful. Consequently, the subsequent detentions were also lawful. The Court affirmed that the discretion to exclude evidence under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) and at common law is a broad one, requiring a balancing of the desirability of admitting evidence against the impropriety or illegality of its obtaining. However, given the lawfulness of the arrests and detentions, the Court found no basis for excluding the evidence in question. The appeals were dismissed.