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?

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

Edited February 3, 20187 yr by vidcapper

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.

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?

 

But has that ever actually happened, I wonder?

Has what ever happened? The coercion part or the prosecution of the discoverer of the evidence?

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.

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.