Stanoevski v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Stanoevski against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant, which the defence argued was obtained in breach of his common law right to silence.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of statements made by the appellant to police, despite the appellant having been cautioned that he was not obliged to answer questions but that failure to do so might be given in evidence against him. The court also considered the proper application of the common law right to silence in the context of police questioning and the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of that right.

Gaudron and Kirby JJ, in a joint judgment, held that the caution administered to the appellant was misleading and that the admission of his subsequent statements constituted a miscarriage of justice. Their Honours reasoned that the common law right to silence protects an individual from being compelled to answer questions and that a caution should not suggest that silence may be used as evidence against an accused. The right to silence is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, and its infringement, particularly through a misleading caution, warrants the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result.

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