Law v The Queen

In *Law v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Law, against his conviction for the offence of conspiracy to import a prohibited drug. The prosecution alleged that Law had conspired with others to import a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in law by admitting evidence of certain intercepted communications. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether these communications, which were obtained pursuant to a warrant issued under the *Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1979* (Cth), were admissible in the criminal proceedings against Law, notwithstanding that the warrant was allegedly defective.

The High Court, in a joint judgment of Gaudron, McHugh and Kirby JJ, held that the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of a statutory provision, such as the *Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act*, depended on the construction of that provision. Their Honours found that the Act did not render inadmissible evidence obtained in contravention of its provisions. Instead, the Court affirmed the principle that evidence obtained unlawfully is not automatically inadmissible, and that the discretion to exclude such evidence is to be exercised in accordance with established principles, balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect and the circumstances of its obtaining. The Court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.