Mallard v The Queen

In *Mallard v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Mallard, had been convicted in the Supreme Court of South Australia and subsequently appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which dismissed his appeal. Mallard then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained through a search of the appellant's property, which was conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the *Controlled Substances Act 1984* (SA). The warrant was for the search of premises for prohibited substances, but the search uncovered evidence of murder. The question was whether the evidence of murder, discovered incidentally during a lawful search for other items, was admissible in the murder trial.

The High Court held that the evidence was admissible. Their Honours reasoned that the police were lawfully on the premises pursuant to a valid warrant. The discovery of the murder weapon and other incriminating items was incidental to the lawful search. The Court affirmed the principle that evidence found incidentally during a lawful search, even if not the subject of the original warrant, may be admissible if it is relevant to a criminal investigation. The admissibility of such evidence is a matter for the trial judge, who must weigh its probative value against any prejudice it might cause to the accused.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal.