Reed v The Queen

In *Reed v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Reed, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Reed to police.

The High Court was required to determine whether the confession was improperly or unfairly obtained, and therefore inadmissible under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). This involved considering whether the confession was obtained in contravention of any Australian law, and if so, whether the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in contravention of the law.

The Court reasoned that the confession was obtained in circumstances where Reed had been subjected to prolonged questioning and had been denied access to legal advice. Gleeson CJ and Heydon J held that the confession was obtained in contravention of the common law right to legal advice and potentially statutory provisions regarding police questioning. They applied the principles established in cases such as *R v Swaffield* and *Pollard v The Queen*, emphasizing the importance of voluntariness and fairness in the admission of confessions. The Court concluded that the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in such circumstances outweighed any desirability of admitting the confession, particularly given the potential for unfair prejudice to the accused.

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