Sullivan v The Queen

Sullivan appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction for murder. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant.

The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, which included a confession and other admissions made by Sullivan, was improperly obtained and therefore inadmissible under the common law. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the police conduct in obtaining the evidence breached Sullivan's rights or amounted to an abuse of process, thereby necessitating its exclusion in the interests of a fair trial.

Gummow J, sitting in chambers, considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances where the voluntariness of a confession is in doubt or where police conduct might be considered oppressive. The Court affirmed that the admissibility of such evidence is a matter for the trial judge, who must balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudice it might cause to the accused and the fairness of the trial. The judge's role is to ensure that convictions are not secured by unfair means, even if the evidence is otherwise relevant.

The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.