(High Court of Australia) Barwick CJ considered the circumstance where, in a criminal trial, a judge was asked to exclude evidence for unfairness: ‘Whenever such unlawfulness or unfairness appears, the judge has a discretion to reject the evidence. He must consider its exercise. In the exercise of it, the competing public requirements must be considered and weighed against each other. On the one hand there is the public need to bring to conviction those who commit criminal offences. On the other hand there is the public interest in the protection of the individual from unlawful and unfair treatment. Convictions obtained by the aid of unlawful or unfair acts may be obtained at too high a price. Hence the judicial discretion.’
Judges:
Barwick CJ
Citations:
[1971-72] 126 CLR 321
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No. 3 of 1999 HL 14-Dec-2000
An horrific rape had taken place. The defendant was arrested on a separate matter, tried and acquitted. He was tried under a false ID. His DNA sample should have been destroyed but wasn’t. Had his identity been known, his DNA could have been kept . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.374691
