JAH v The Queen

The applicant, JAH, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The Crown was the respondent. The dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the applicant, with arguments raised regarding the interpretation of section 410 of the relevant legislation, the voluntariness of admissions, the fairness of the proceedings, and the exercise of the discretion under *Bunning v Cross*.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a statement made by Detective Griffin to the applicant, suggesting that blood tests had confirmed the applicant was of the same blood group as the offender, constituted an untrue representation. This statement was made while the applicant was in illegal police custody and the applicant's counsel submitted that the police knew at the time that the tests were not definitive blood tests and were not reportable. The applicant's legal team argued that this misrepresentation was of general importance and particularly relevant to the applicant's case.

The applicant's counsel contended that the meaning of the representation must be determined by considering the entire context, including the knowledge and intention of the person making the statement. The applicant argued that the statement was untrue because the tests conducted were not blood tests as such, but rather enzymatical tests (phosphoglucomutase) that indicated the applicant belonged to a blood group common to a significant portion of the population. Furthermore, the applicant submitted that the police knew the results were not reportable and that the illegality of the custody was deliberate.