Williams v The Queen was a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia on 26 August 1987, concerning the common law right to personal liberty. The applicant, Williams, was indicted before the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 29 charges—15 of burglary and 14 of stealing. At the commencement of the trial, counsel for Williams objected to the admission in evidence of a number of records of interview containing confessions allegedly made to the police by Williams. He argued that Williams had been detained unlawfully, because he ought to have been brought before a judge and formally charged as soon as reasonably practicable after his arrest. Instead, he was detained in police custody for 28 hours, and questioned about his role in a variety of burglaries across northern Tasmania. After a voir dire, the trial judge ruled that the records of interview which related to 26 of the charges should not be admitted in evidence, because they were obtained unlawfully through Williams' extended detention. As a result, the trial proceeded with no evidence being tendered by the prosecution in respect of those 26 charges, and the jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty. Williams pleaded guilty to the remaining three charges. The Attorney-General for Tasmania appealed to the Tasmanian Court of Criminal Appeal against the applicant's acquittal on the 26 charges. The Court upheld the appeal, and ordered that Williams must be re-tried on the 26 charges. Williams then appealed to the High Court. The High Court unanimously (5:0) upheld Williams' appeal, finding that, in the absence of a clear statutory power, the police could not detain Williams for longer than it took to take him before a judge, and could not detain him solely for the purpose of questioning him. The purpose of detention in police custody was purely to take an accused before a judge, once the police were reasonably certain a crime had been committed. Chief Justice Gibbs said: The critical question is whether the arrested person was detained longer than was reasonably necessary to enable him to be brought before a justice. If he is detained for the purpose of enabling him to be brought before a justice, the fact that he is questioned, whether about the offence for which he was arrested, or about other offences, will not necessarily mean that there has been a failure to bring him before a