R v P S48/2002

This matter concerned an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Director sought to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, P, on charges of murder. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the respondent.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from the respondent, which included statements and a confession, was unlawfully obtained and, if so, whether it should have been admitted into evidence by the trial judge. This involved considering the application of s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) and the principles governing the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence.

The Court held that the evidence was unlawfully obtained because the police failed to comply with certain statutory requirements when questioning the respondent. However, the Court ultimately found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence. Gleeson CJ and Hayne J reasoned that while the evidence was unlawfully obtained, its admission was justified in the interests of justice, applying the balancing exercise required by s 138 of the *Evidence Act*. The Court emphasised that the discretion to admit such evidence should be exercised with caution, but that in this instance, the probative value of the evidence outweighed the impropriety of its acquisition.

The appeal was dismissed.