McInnis v The Queen

McInnis was the appellant in this case before the High Court of Australia, appealing against his conviction for murder. The Crown was the respondent. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence in the context of a murder trial.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him and items seized from his person, following his arrest. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the jury directions on the issue of self-defence were adequate and correctly reflected the relevant legal principles, particularly concerning the appellant's belief as to the necessity of using force.

The Court held that the evidence obtained from the appellant was unlawfully obtained, as the arrest was not made on reasonable suspicion. However, it further determined that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion to admit this evidence, applying the principles established in *Bales v The Queen*, which allow for the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Regarding self-defence, the Court found that the jury directions were deficient, as they failed to adequately convey that the appellant's belief as to the necessity of using force, even if mistaken, was to be judged by the circumstances as he perceived them.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.