Pellew v The State of Western Australia; Hajinoor v The State of Western Australia

Pellew and Hajinoor appealed their convictions for murder in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through covert surveillance, specifically audio recordings made by police officers who had entered the appellants' homes without a warrant. The central dispute revolved around whether this evidence was lawfully obtained and, consequently, admissible in their criminal trials.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the police officers' actions in entering the appellants' homes and making recordings constituted an unlawful trespass, thereby rendering the evidence inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of the implied licence to enter a private dwelling and whether that licence was revoked by the officers' intention to conduct surveillance. The Court also had to assess whether the evidence was obtained "improperly" for the purposes of the relevant evidence legislation.

The Court held that the implied licence to enter a private dwelling for lawful purposes does not extend to covert surveillance. By entering the appellants' homes with the intention of conducting surveillance, the police officers exceeded the scope of any implied licence and therefore committed trespass. Consequently, the audio recordings were obtained unlawfully. The Court applied the principle that evidence obtained in breach of a person's rights, particularly the right to privacy and security of the home, should generally be excluded unless there are compelling reasons for its admission. The Court found no such compelling reasons in this instance.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for a retrial.