Wildy v The Queen

Wildy appealed his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search of the appellant's property and the subsequent use of that evidence at trial.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the search warrant used to seize the evidence was validly issued, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should have been excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule. The court was required to consider the requirements for the lawful execution of search warrants and the principles governing the admission of improperly obtained evidence.

The Court held that the search warrant was invalid because it had not been properly signed by the issuing officer. Consequently, the evidence seized pursuant to that warrant was unlawfully obtained. Applying the exclusionary rule, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence, as there was no justification for departing from the general rule that unlawfully obtained evidence should be excluded. The Court concluded that the admission of this evidence had likely led to a miscarriage of justice.

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