Urbanec v The Queen, Roberts v The Queen

The High Court of Australia considered appeals by Urbanec and Roberts against their convictions for murder. Both appellants had been convicted following trials in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue on appeal concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by police during investigations.

The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the evidence obtained from the appellants, specifically their fingerprints and palm prints, had been obtained in contravention of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) and, if so, whether that evidence should have been excluded from their trials under the common law. This involved an examination of the powers of police to take fingerprints and palm prints from suspects and the circumstances under which such evidence might be deemed inadmissible due to improper acquisition.

The Court analysed the provisions of the *Crimes Act* relating to the taking of fingerprints and palm prints, particularly in the context of arrests and investigations. It was held that the police had acted unlawfully in obtaining the prints from the appellants, as they had not been lawfully arrested at the time the prints were taken. Applying the common law exclusionary rule, the Court determined that evidence obtained in contravention of a statute, even if relevant, should be excluded if its admission would be unfair to the accused. The Court found that the admission of the unlawfully obtained prints was unfair to the appellants and that their convictions should be quashed.

The High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions of Urbanec and Roberts, and ordered that a new trial be held for each appellant.