Jervis v SA Police- Holland v SA Police

The High Court of Australia heard appeals in *Jervis v SA Police* and *Holland v SA Police*. Both cases concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the police had acted unlawfully. In *Jervis*, the appellant was convicted of possessing a prohibited substance after police, acting on a warrant that was later found to be invalid, searched his premises and found the substance. In *Holland*, the appellant was convicted of receiving stolen goods after police, without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion, stopped and searched his vehicle, discovering the goods.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether evidence obtained in contravention of a statute or common law rule should be admitted in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the Court had to consider the application of the exclusionary rule and the principles governing the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in South Australia, given the relevant provisions of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA) and the common law.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the evidence in both cases should have been excluded. The Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained in contravention of a statute or common law rule is not automatically inadmissible. However, it reiterated that courts possess a discretion to exclude such evidence. This discretion is to be exercised by balancing the probative value of the evidence against the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained by unlawful or improper means. The Court found that in both *Jervis* and *Holland*, the unlawful conduct of the police was significant and that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, outweighing its probative value.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered that the evidence be excluded.