Johns v The Queen

Johns appealed his conviction for armed robbery to the High Court of Australia. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant, which he argued was obtained in breach of his common law right to silence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of statements made by the appellant to police officers, notwithstanding the appellant's assertion that he had been denied access to legal advice and had not been cautioned as to his right to silence. The court also considered the application of the principle that evidence obtained in breach of a common law right, even if relevant, may be excluded if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

The majority of the High Court held that the common law right to silence, while important, did not operate to render inadmissible evidence obtained in its breach, provided the evidence was relevant and not obtained by unfair or improper means. The court distinguished between a right to silence that prevents questioning and a right to refuse to answer questions, finding that the latter was not absolute. The judges considered the circumstances of the questioning and concluded that the statements were not involuntary and that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.