Stephens v The Queen

Stephens appealed his conviction for armed robbery to the High Court of Australia. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from the appellant, which the appellant 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 the appellant's silence in response to police questioning, and whether this admission constituted a miscarriage of justice. Specifically, the court considered the application of the "right to silence" principle in the context of police interviews and the circumstances under which a failure to answer questions could be considered by a jury.

Gleeson J, delivering the judgment of the Court, affirmed that while there is a common law right to silence, this right does not extend to a right to mislead or deceive. His Honour explained that where an accused person remains silent in circumstances where a reasonable person would be expected to respond, and that silence is relied upon by the prosecution to infer guilt, the jury may be permitted to draw such an inference. However, this is permissible only if the accused has been cautioned that their silence may be used against them. In this instance, the appellant had not been cautioned, and the admission of his silence was therefore improper.

The High Court found that the admission of the evidence of the appellant's silence, without a proper caution, had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.