Lacey v The Queen; Lacey v The Queen; Lacey v The Attorney-General of Queensland

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by Mr. Lacey against convictions for murder and the Attorney-General of Queensland's cross-appeal concerning the admissibility of certain evidence. The central dispute revolved around the use of evidence obtained through covert surveillance, specifically recordings made by police officers who had entered Mr. Lacey's property without a warrant. Mr. Lacey argued that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and should have been excluded from his trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained by police through covert entry and surveillance, without a warrant, was admissible in criminal proceedings. This involved considering the scope of police powers to enter private property for the purpose of surveillance and the principles governing the admission of unlawfully or improperly obtained evidence, particularly in light of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) and the common law. The court also had to assess whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence.

The Court held that the police entry onto Mr. Lacey's property constituted a trespass and that the subsequent surveillance was unlawful. However, the Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained improperly or in contravention of the law is not automatically inadmissible. The admissibility of such evidence depends on a balancing exercise, weighing the probative value of the evidence against the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in contravention of the law. In this instance, the High Court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion to admit the evidence, as its probative value was high and the contravention of the law, while significant, did not warrant exclusion in the circumstances. The appeals were dismissed.