Riley v State of Tasmania

Riley v State of Tasmania concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, Riley, had been convicted of murder and appealed against that conviction. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation of the crime.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, specifically statements made by the appellant to police, had been obtained in contravention of the appellant's rights under the *Police Offences Act 1935* (Tas) and, if so, whether that evidence should have been excluded from the trial. A further issue was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, thereby occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The High Court considered the provisions of the *Police Offences Act 1935* (Tas) concerning the questioning of suspects and the requirement for police to inform them of their rights. Their Honours found that the statements were made in circumstances where the appellant had not been properly informed of his rights, and therefore, the evidence was obtained in contravention of the Act. Applying the principles of fairness and the proper exercise of judicial discretion, the Court held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence. The admission of this improperly obtained evidence was considered to have created a substantial miscarriage of justice.

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