Pollard v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Pollard, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained through a police interview conducted after Pollard had been arrested and charged, but before he had been brought before a magistrate.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained during the interview, specifically Pollard's admissions, should have been excluded under section 235 of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) or under the court's general discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence. This involved determining whether the interview was conducted in contravention of statutory requirements regarding the production of an arrested person before a magistrate, and if so, whether the admissions were nonetheless admissible.

The Court reasoned that section 235 of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) imposed a mandatory obligation on police to bring an arrested person before a magistrate with all convenient speed. Failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, rendered any statement made by the arrested person during the period of unlawful detention inadmissible. The Court found that Pollard had not been brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable after his arrest and charge, and that the police had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay. Consequently, the admissions made during the interview were unlawfully obtained and therefore inadmissible. The Court also affirmed its discretion to exclude unfairly obtained evidence, but found the statutory provision determinative in this instance.

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