NJA v The Queen, CMM v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by NJA and CMM against their convictions for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of confessions made by the appellants to police. The appellants argued that their confessions were involuntary and therefore inadmissible, as they were obtained in circumstances that rendered them unreliable.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the confessions made by NJA and CMM to police were voluntary, and consequently, admissible in evidence. This required the Court to examine the circumstances surrounding the making of the confessions, particularly in light of the appellants' respective vulnerabilities and the conduct of the police officers involved. The Court also considered the application of the common law exclusionary rule concerning involuntary confessions.

The High Court held that the confessions were inadmissible. Applying the principles established in *R v Swaffield* and *Williams v The Queen*, the Court determined that the confessions were not voluntary because they were induced by an improper exercise of police power. Specifically, the Court found that the police had subjected the appellants to oppressive questioning and had failed to provide them with adequate opportunities to seek legal advice or contact family members. This conduct, in the context of the appellants' impaired mental states, rendered the confessions unreliable and therefore inadmissible under the common law.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a retrial.