Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 08:01 AM

This refers to evidence obtained illegally being used for prosecution.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment-and-opinion/fruit-from-a-poisoned-tree-unlawfully-obtained-evidence/5062566.article

Should evidence obtained illegally be allowed to be used in court?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 02:46 PM

I voted no, since I wouldn't want evidence obtained by, say, coercion to be used to prosecute anyone.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 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.

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd February 2018, 03:01 PM

QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 3 2018, 02:55 PM)

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2018, 03:05 PM

QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 3 2018, 03:01 PM)

Posted by: Popchartfreak 3rd February 2018, 04:34 PM

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.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 3rd February 2018, 05:49 PM

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.