Spilios v The Queen

Spilios appealed his conviction for armed robbery and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the severity of the sentence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant's mobile phone, specifically call logs and location data, without a warrant. It also had to consider whether the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years was manifestly excessive.

The High Court held that the search of the mobile phone and the seizure of its data constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the *Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006* (Vic). The Court reasoned that the police had not obtained a warrant, nor had they established that any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the phone should have been excluded. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that while the offence was serious, the sentence was not demonstrably excessive when viewed in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and the objective seriousness of the crime.

The appeal was allowed in part. The conviction was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria for a retrial. The sentence appeal was dismissed.