Slater (a Pseudonym) v The Queen

In Slater (a Pseudonym) v The Queen, the applicant appealed against an interlocutory ruling that excluded evidence obtained as a consequence of an illegal search of a vehicle driven by the applicant’s partner. The evidence was deemed inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2008 s 138, which requires the exclusion of evidence obtained in consequence of a contravention of the law. The illegal search led to the discovery of evidence against the partner, which subsequently brought the applicant to the attention of police. Several months later, a lawful search warrant was executed at the home of the applicant and the partner, leading to the discovery of evidence against the applicant. The central legal issue was whether the judge erred in admitting the evidence obtained against the applicant under s 138.

The court examined whether the House v The King principle applies to the balancing test under s 138 and whether the judge correctly assessed the causal link between the illegal search and the evidence obtained against the applicant. The court found that the judge did not err in concluding that the causal link was attenuated by the remoteness of the illegal search from the obtaining of the evidence against the applicant. The court further determined that the judge was correct in treating as irrelevant the alleged police attempt to conceal the consequences of the impropriety or contravention. The case law of Tasmania v Crane and R v Hunt was applied to support the court's reasoning.

The court ultimately upheld the interlocutory ruling, holding that the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in consequence of a contravention of the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the evidence obtained against the applicant remained inadmissible. The case underscores the importance of the balancing test under s 138 and the factors that a judge must consider in determining whether to admit evidence obtained in consequence of a contravention of the law.