R v Lee

The case of *R v Lee* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The original trial had resulted in the conviction of Jean Lee, Robert David Clayton, and Norman Andrews for murder, with all three sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeal, by a majority, had quashed these convictions and ordered a new trial. The High Court granted special leave to the Crown to appeal this decision.

The central legal issues before the High Court concerned the admissibility of statements made by the accused to police officers. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope and application of section 141 of the *Evidence Act 1928* (Vict.) and its interaction with the common law "discretion rule" regarding the exclusion of evidence obtained through improper police conduct. The court was required to consider whether a trial judge possessed a discretion to reject voluntary statements made by an accused, and if so, the nature of that discretion and the onus of proof in its exercise.

The High Court reasoned that section 141 of the *Evidence Act* applies only to "confessions," meaning statements that amount to admissions of guilt. It compels the admission of certain confessions that would otherwise be inadmissible at common law due to inducements, unless the judge believes the inducement was likely to cause an untrue admission. However, section 141 does not preclude the common law discretion to reject evidence. This discretion allows a judge to exclude even voluntary statements if their admission would be unfair to the accused, considering the means by which they were obtained. The court clarified that the onus is not on the Crown to prove the absence of unfairness; rather, it is for the accused to demonstrate grounds for exclusion under this discretion. The court found that the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeal had erred in their application of this discretion, particularly by focusing on whether the impropriety was likely to cause an untrue admission, which it considered an irrelevant consideration for the exercise of discretion.

The High Court allowed the Crown's appeal, reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria, and restored the convictions and sentences of the original trial.