Soltan v Director of Public Prosecutions; Paranihi v Director of Public Prosecutions

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by Soltan and Paranihi against convictions for offences under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during investigations into alleged breaches of the *Migration Act*. The appellants argued that the evidence was improperly obtained and should have been excluded by the trial judge.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the evidence, which included statements made by the appellants to the AFP, was obtained in contravention of the *Migration Act* and, if so, whether it should have been excluded under s 138 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). This involved determining the scope of the AFP's powers to obtain information under the *Migration Act* and the proper application of the discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence.

The Court held that the AFP officers, in their capacity as immigration officers, were empowered by s 269RA of the *Migration Act* to require persons to answer questions relevant to the administration of the Act. The statements made by the appellants were therefore not improperly obtained. Consequently, the Court found no basis to exclude the evidence under s 138 of the *Evidence Act*, as the threshold requirement of evidence being improperly or illegally obtained was not met. The appeals were dismissed.