Young v The King

This case involved an appeal by the applicant, Young, against a decision of the trial judge concerning the admission of evidence. The dispute centred on whether certain evidence, obtained potentially improperly or illegally, should have been excluded on public policy grounds. The matter was heard by Kourakis CJ, Doyle and David JJ.

The primary legal issue before the court was the application of section 138 of the Uniform Evidence Law, which governs the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence. This section requires a court to exclude such evidence unless the desirability of admitting it outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in that manner. The court was also required to consider the standard of appellate review applicable to a trial judge's exercise of this discretion.

The court's reasoning, as articulated by Doyle JA, focused on whether the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was demonstrably wrong. The court noted that the appellant had not established that the trial judge erred in their exercise of discretion to decline exclusion on public policy grounds, nor that the decision was affected by the type of error required by *House v The King*. David JA agreed with the proposed orders and indicated a preliminary view that the standard of appellate review for such discretions should be one of correctness, though he preferred not to express a concluded view without full argument.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with permission to appeal granted only to the extent necessary for that outcome.