HML vThe 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 applicants had been arrested and detained. The applicants, HML, SB, and OAE, were all convicted of various offences following trials where evidence obtained during their respective periods of detention was admitted. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether this evidence should have been excluded.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from each applicant during their detention was rendered inadmissible by reason of breaches of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) or the common law. Specifically, the court considered whether the detention of the applicants was lawful and, if not, what consequences flowed for the admissibility of evidence obtained during that detention, particularly in light of the principles established in *R v Swaffield* and *Loki v The Queen*. The court also examined the application of s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) in determining whether improperly or illegally obtained evidence should be admitted.

The High Court held that in each of the three cases, the detention of the applicants was unlawful. This unlawfulness stemmed from the failure of the police to bring the applicants before a judicial officer as soon as reasonably practicable after their arrest, as required by s 235 of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth). The court reasoned that the purpose of this requirement was to prevent prolonged detention without judicial oversight. Consequently, evidence obtained during periods of unlawful detention was, in principle, inadmissible. However, the court applied the balancing exercise mandated by s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), weighing the desirability of admitting the evidence against the undesirability of improperly obtaining it. In HML's case, the court found that the evidence should have been excluded. In SB's case, while the detention was unlawful, the court determined that the evidence was admissible. In OAE's case, the court concluded that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeals were allowed in part. HML's conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered. SB's conviction was affirmed. OAE's conviction was quashed and a judgment of acquittal entered.