Hore v The Queen; Wichen 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). The appellants, Hore and Wichen, were convicted of various offences following the seizure of evidence from their respective residences. The central dispute revolved around whether the evidence, which included firearms and ammunition, should have been excluded from their trials due to the manner in which it was obtained. The appeals were heard by the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judges erred in admitting the evidence, notwithstanding the admitted breaches of the *Crimes Act*. Specifically, the Court had to consider the application of s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth), which governs the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, and the principles established in *Beni v The Queen* regarding the admissibility of such evidence. The core legal question was whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the public interest in preserving the integrity of the administration of justice by excluding evidence obtained in contravention of statutory requirements.

Gleeson J, delivering the judgment of the Court, affirmed the principles that evidence obtained in contravention of a statutory provision is not automatically inadmissible. The Court reiterated that the admissibility of such evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge, who must weigh the competing public interests. In this instance, the Court found that the trial judges had properly exercised their discretion, having regard to the nature of the contraventions, the importance of the evidence, and the circumstances in which it was obtained. The breaches of the *Crimes Act* were found not to be so serious as to warrant the exclusion of evidence that was highly relevant to the charges faced by the appellants.

The appeals were dismissed.