Pickett; Mead; Mead; Anthony; TSM (A Child) v The State of Western Australia

Bell and Nettle JJ heard an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial. The appellants, Pickett, Mead, Mead, Anthony, and TSM (a child), were convicted of various offences, including aggravated robbery and assault occasioning bodily harm. The central dispute revolved around the admission of evidence obtained through an allegedly unlawful search and seizure conducted by police. The appellants argued that this evidence should have been excluded under section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (WA) because its admission would have had an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that outweighed the public interest in admitting the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia was whether the evidence obtained from the search of a vehicle and a subsequent search of a residence should have been excluded. This required the court to consider the application of section 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (WA), which governs the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Specifically, the court had to weigh the public interest in admitting relevant evidence against the public interest in discouraging unlawful conduct by law enforcement officers.

The court reasoned that the police officers had acted unlawfully in conducting the initial search of the vehicle without reasonable suspicion. However, they found that the subsequent search of the residence, while also conducted without a warrant, was sufficiently connected to the information obtained from the initial unlawful search. Crucially, the court applied the balancing test under section 138, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the importance of the evidence, and the degree of the contravention. Bell and Nettle JJ concluded that while the initial search was unlawful, the public interest in admitting the evidence, particularly given its probative value and the seriousness of the offences charged, outweighed the public interest in excluding it. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.