Kamm v The Queen; Heiss v The Queen

These proceedings concern applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Kamm and Mr Heiss (the applicants) against the respondent, The Queen. The applicants sought to challenge decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory which upheld the admissibility of confessions made by them while in police custody. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation and application of provisions within the Northern Territory's Police Administration Act concerning the lawful detention of persons by police.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its interpretation of sections 137(2) and 138 of the Police Administration Act, and consequently, whether confessions made by the applicants during periods of detention authorised by these provisions were unlawfully obtained. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Court of Criminal Appeal incorrectly concluded that confessions made during such detentions, even if voluntary, would not be obtained unlawfully and therefore would not attract the court's discretion to exclude them.

The applicants contended that the Court of Criminal Appeal had fundamentally misunderstood the relevant legislation. They argued that the sections in question did not render confessions made during authorised detention admissible per se, but rather provided criteria for determining a "reasonable period" for detention, primarily in relation to bail purposes. The applicants submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeal had wrongly assumed that Parliament had legislated to permit confessions made during such detentions, a power they argued the courts themselves should not exercise. The trial judge had conducted voir dire hearings concerning the admissibility of the confessions, and the applicants argued that the appeal court had erred in its review of the trial judge's discretionary exercise in admitting these statements.