Putland v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Putland against his conviction for armed robbery. The dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from Putland following his arrest, specifically a confession and items found in his possession. The High Court was tasked with determining whether this evidence should have been excluded by the trial judge.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from Putland after his arrest was unlawfully obtained, and if so, whether it should have been excluded in the exercise of the trial judge's discretion. This involved considering the provisions of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) regarding arrest and detention, and the common law principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances where police powers may have been exceeded.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the arrest of Putland was unlawful. However, they found that the subsequent confession and the discovery of the stolen property were not rendered inadmissible by this unlawfulness. The Court applied the principle that evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest may still be admissible if it was not obtained "by reason of" the unlawful act. The judges reasoned that the confession was voluntary and the items found were discovered through the accused's own volition, not as a direct consequence of the unlawful arrest itself. The Court affirmed that the discretion to exclude evidence obtained unlawfully is a broad one, but it is not mandatory to exclude such evidence in all circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.