Krecichwost v The Queen

The applicant, Krecichwost, appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for the offence of murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the applicant during police interviews conducted after he had been charged with the offence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from the applicant during the post-charge interviews was admissible, notwithstanding that the applicant had not been cautioned that anything he said might be used in evidence against him. This involved considering the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights.

The Court held that the failure to caution the applicant before the post-charge interviews rendered the evidence obtained inadmissible. French CJ and Gageler J reasoned that the common law exclusionary rule, which requires that evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights be excluded unless the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, applied in this instance. They found that the breach of the applicant's right to be cautioned was significant and that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.