Roberts v The Queen

Roberts appealed his conviction for armed robbery to the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Roberts, had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland following a trial by jury. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant and the subsequent directions given by the trial judge to the jury.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a statement made to police and items found in his possession, was unlawfully obtained and therefore inadmissible. Further, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the use of this evidence, particularly concerning the inference that could be drawn from the appellant's failure to provide an explanation for his possession of the items, were legally sound.

The Court analysed the provisions of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) and relevant common law principles concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances where police may have exceeded their lawful powers. Brennan CJ, Toohey and Gummow JJ held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence and in the directions given to the jury. Their Honours reasoned that the evidence was obtained in circumstances that rendered it inadmissible, and that the jury should not have been permitted to draw an adverse inference from the appellant's silence. The principles of fairness and the proper application of the *Criminal Code* were central to their reasoning.

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