Rigney v The Queen; Mitchell v The Queen; Carver v The Queen

These appeals concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by police in circumstances where the accused had been subjected to unlawful detention. The applicants, Rigney, Mitchell, and Carver, were convicted of various offences, including murder and assault, following trials in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue on appeal was whether the evidence obtained during their respective periods of unlawful detention should have been excluded by the trial judges.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judges had erred in admitting the evidence, despite the unlawful nature of the detentions. Specifically, the Court considered the application of the exclusionary rule in relation to evidence obtained in breach of an accused's rights, and the principles governing the exercise of discretion to admit such evidence. The Court also examined the relevance of the seriousness of the offence for which the accused was ultimately charged to the question of admissibility.

The High Court held that the admission of the evidence was not an error. Gleeson CJ, applying the principles established in *Bunning v Cross* and *Kingswell v The Queen*, emphasised that the question of admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the law involves a balancing exercise. The Court considered the competing interests of the community in bringing offenders to justice and the need to protect individual rights. While acknowledging the illegality of the detentions, the Court found that the probative value of the evidence was high and that the circumstances of its acquisition did not warrant exclusion in the exercise of the trial judges' discretion. The Court noted that the seriousness of the offences charged was a relevant, though not determinative, factor in this balancing exercise.