Fruit of the poisoned tree - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

A chart double for Taylor Swift

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

Fruit of the poisoned tree

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Fruit of the poisoned tree
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 6
Guests cannot vote

vidcapper View member profile	3rd February 2018, 08:01 AM Post #1
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	This refers to evidence obtained illegally being used for prosecution. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment-and-op...5062566.article Should evidence obtained illegally be allowed to be used in court?


vidcapper View member profile	3rd February 2018, 02:46 PM Post #2
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	I voted no, since I wouldn't want evidence obtained by, say, coercion to be used to prosecute anyone. This post has been edited by vidcapper: 3rd February 2018, 02:46 PM


Suedehead2 View member profile	3rd February 2018, 02:55 PM Post #3
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272	The current position seems to be typically vague with the decision left to the judge and the CPS. That has a lot to be said for it. I would hope that evidence gained buy coercion would, in general, be rejected as inadmissible. As the article states, even if the evidence is used, the person who uncovered it still risks being prosecuted themselves.


vidcapper View member profile	3rd February 2018, 03:01 PM Post #4
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 3 2018, 02:55 PM) The current position seems to be typically vague with the decision left to the judge and the CPS. That has a lot to be said for it. I would hope that evidence gained buy coercion would, in general, be rejected as inadmissible. As the article states, even if the evidence is used, the person who uncovered it still risks being prosecuted themselves. But has that ever actually happened, I wonder?


Suedehead2 View member profile	3rd February 2018, 03:05 PM Post #5
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,676 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 3 2018, 03:01 PM) But has that ever actually happened, I wonder? Has what ever happened? The coercion part or the prosecution of the discoverer of the evidence?


Popchartfreak View member profile	3rd February 2018, 04:34 PM Post #6
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,851 User: 17,376	depends on the situation. A leak of facts, yes it should be legal. Coercion, as in beating a confession out of someone, no, because it's unreliable. Faced with violence people will admit to flying to the moon and back to avoid further beatings and torture.


Silas View member profile	3rd February 2018, 05:49 PM Post #7
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,088 User: 3,474	I think when it is deemed "fruit of the poison tree" because there's a very tiny technical flaw with a search warrant or something is a little bit of a joke - mainly because it lets clearly guilty criminals off to hook. However, at the centre of our justice system is fairness and I think for the justice system to continue to act independently, beyond reproach then this concept needs to remain. Start overlooking it a couple of times and down the road you end up with things that are rightfully thrown out becoming the new grey area.