Wingfield v The Queen

Wingfield appealed his conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically statements made by him to police and a confession.

The High Court was required to determine whether the statements and confession made by the appellant were admissible in evidence, given the circumstances under which they were obtained. This involved considering whether the appellant had been improperly induced to make those statements and, if so, whether their admission would be unfair to the appellant or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, particularly the rule that a confession is inadmissible if it is obtained by means of an untrue representation or promise made to the accused. Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ found that the police had made an untrue representation to the appellant that if he confessed, he would be charged with manslaughter and not murder. This representation was found to be a significant inducement, rendering the subsequent confession inadmissible. The Court held that the admission of the confession would be unfair to the appellant and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

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