Debate: Illegally obtained evidence

Meridian said:
No it doesn't, that's US law. In the UK the judge decides what is allowed, subject to input (but not over-riding) by the barristers for both sides. It is entirely possible for the judge to allow illegally-obtained evidence, but he/she would almost certainly make sure that the jury were informed as to how the evidence was obtained. The Defence would almost certainly do the same anyway. The UK rules are far less drastic than the US ones. It appears, as is sually the case, the most people here know far more about US law than UK. Gotta love TV.


M
Click to expand...

You're right in as far as it's the Judge who will decide, but wrong in as far as admissibility. No Judge would want to allow in dodgy evidence; all that would happen is the defendant will rightly appeal and any sentence will be quashed. You can't just fit people up! The evidence must be spot on. Where prosecutions fall down, it's mainly for procedural or continuity errors; people not signing a form or an Exhibit label for example.

Generally, the standard of prosecutions is pretty high in terms of compelling evidence, so procedure and continuity are some of the few remaining areas that can be attacked.
 
I can't believe there's even a debate.

Regardless of where it came from, what media it is on, who it was from, stolen or not there will always be the issue of authenticity.

Other than that, it should be taken seriously for evidence, after all if the event actually happened and there's suddenly new evidence, leaked or stolen or not, you could potentially help justice. Then again, if it's fake, corrupt justice.

But even "legally obtained" evidence could end up being from a fake source.
It shouldn't automatically be dismissable by the means of access, once it's seen whatever punishement follows should be seperate from the subject case on the video/print/etc.

I always use this when talking to people about anything releated to murders/law, imagine it happened to you, or someone close. It's too easy arguing when it's just an imaginary example or unknown person you don't care about.
But if the threads OP happened in real life and it was your closest person in your life, I don't think you'd have much problem of how it came to light, just authenticity, always that! It has to real and that's hard to prove sometimes.

Ricochet J said:
I remember this was debated in my 6th form's debating society and caused quite a stir. The room was divided. People who studied A Level politics and law sided with the evidence not being allowed to be used. Others sided with it being allowed.
Click to expand...

No surprise, there are parts of law, so ingrained and passed down from elder to younger that they have no possible understanding of what's going wrong, just because many life times ago a group of humans decide this is right and this is wrong, doesn't mean it should still exist. It's sad, you'll have people who will guard and defend all the red tape as if it were their own child, they'll even use it to get around systems, or to get someone in trouble out of it due to technicalities, law is very complex but it isn't perfect either, not much is perfect. Someones life was taken and there's probable evidence, to dismiss it on a whim is a bit naive and childish to jump to.

You must always question, or we give in.
 
Last edited:
What is the law in this country regarding illegally obtained evidence by a 3rd party? For example in the US it is my understanding that a police officer isn't allowed to break into a house without a warrant and use any evidence obtained, but if some other person who is not acting on behalf of the police breaks in and take a murder weapon, then hands it to the police then that is allowed to be used in court. Is the UK courts similar or is the evidence not allowed regardless of who took it?
 
People really do talk some tosh, and are completely ignoring the other side of it. If I was being framed for murder, and there was evidence that completely exonerated me, but the prosecution was overzealous in getting it and it had to be thrown out.... then I spent the rest of my life in jail despite a half dozen people knowing the truth, having the evidence but being unable to use it.... that is NOT justice.

Anyway all these "you can't use any tainted evidence" people are absolutely cringeworthy, you're all acting like the current law system is perfect, uncorrupt and brilliant in every way and letting illegally obtained evidence into it would taint the system. That's the problem, its laughable unjustice as it is.

You can go after the person that got the illegally obtained evidence and decide if he should be prosecuted or not.

Things like whistleblower laws in the US and I believe here already allow for illegally obtained evidence to be used, and for the person who gives that evidence to be immune to prosecution.

It's as simple as this, if the evidence can be verified and drastically changes the case, it should be admitted. No person should get away with a serious crime if there is evidence they are guilty, nor EVER go to jail when there is absolute evidence they did not do it.

Don't forget, there are situations in which evidence can be purposefully tainted by the defendants lawyer, though less likely the other way around is possible. Not to mention the myriad of ridiculous technicalities that can rule usually obtained evidence illegally obtained. Someone misspelling a name on a warrant, no one notices it, an entire houseful of evidence thrown out, possible, and stupid.

There are many levels of "illegally obtained" , someone misspells a name, or searches the wrong house number, to breaking into someones house and taking vital evidence, they should all be treated the same? No.
As ChrisJSY said, so many things in life people accept as an idea, as RIGHT because they are simply told it and its always been that way, it doesn't make it right, or a good idea.

I'd be absolutely without question livid if anyone I knew was sent to jail despite a video of someone else commiting the crime being available but deemed illegally obtained, there is no way anyone can describe that as justice.
 
drunkenmaster said:
People really do talk some tosh, and are completely ignoring the other side of it. If I was being framed for murder, and there was evidence that completely exonerated me, but the prosecution was overzealous in getting it and it had to be thrown out.... then I spent the rest of my life in jail despite a half dozen people knowing the truth, having the evidence but being unable to use it.... that is NOT justice.
Click to expand...

If the prosecution got evidence that proved you're not guilty they would just drop the case, even if the evidence was not usable in court. If the prosecution keeps going after people when they know full well they are innocent then you have bigger problems than evidence not being allowed.
 
Much like any other situation I would rather not have a black and white "You can do this, you cannot do this". The merits of the evidence, how it was obtained, who obtained it and why should all be taken into consideration before the evidence is considered admissable or not. Which I think is how it is actually done in the UK (and seems to be supported by some posts by knowledgable individuals in the thread).
 
it shouldnt be admissable and anyone who thinks it should be, is very naive.
all this would do is cause a mass outbreak of vigilantism. if you feel you have been wronged in some way, you suspect you know who is responsible, but feel the police arent doing their job properly. what do you do, break into everyone you consider a suspects house/place of work and see what you can find. then anything you consider useful you send in anonomosly, and it then gets subbmitted.
this behaviour would then get more and more, and leading to possibly violence to obtain said evidence. its just the start of a slippery slope.
 
Although it seems a good idea at first it doesn't take much to see why it's not allowed

Vigilante
 
Who has obtained the evidence? a professional criminal? kids trespassing in an old warehouse who find a safe and smash it open?

As long as the evidence is recovered properly from the finder by the police then it should be used no questions asked.

Only the murderer would not want it to be used!
 
dsb said:
Who has obtained the evidence? a professional criminal? kids trespassing in an old warehouse who find a safe and smash it open?

As long as the evidence is recovered properly from the finder by the police then it should be used no questions asked.

Only the murderer would not want it to be used!
Click to expand...

but you would have to then have defined rules as to how it could be optained, which i believe there is WITH A WARRANT!!!!!

unless it has been originally obtained via the correct channels, then it will be open to interpitation, and vigilatism will be ripe.
 
A warrant is not required to obtain evidence relating to an offence, all you need is that it is in relation to an offence and that it holds some evidential value. It can pass through many hands until it gets to the police its the decision of the CPS to decide if it worth any use in court.

If somebody turned up in court with said video the judge would be informed about it and be shown it along with the defence and prosecution lawyers, it will then be used or a recess so that prosecution can try authenticate it or not, or it just get dismissed.
 
So if some kids found it in an old safe in a unused airfield, took it home and dad puts it on his old video player it should be dismissed?
 
dsb said:
So if some kids found it in an old safe in a unused airfield, took it home and dad puts it on his old video player it should be dismissed?
Click to expand...

i would say said kids would not be reliable sources. but if they did not break and enter or cause criminal damage to obtain it then i suppose that is different. but setting out clear guidlines on how evidence can be submitted when obtain illegally would be too hard it would leave everything wide open to vigilanties. so its easier to dismiss everything.
 
As the law stands just now dsb, the judge would rule on it. I don't see how that would be illegal, but let's assume it was... then the judge might say it's ok.

I on the other hand don't agree and think that illegally obtained evidence should always be dismissed. It's not often that a verdict will hinge on one piece of evidence. If it's illegally obtained it's suspect at best, there's other questions if it's a frame up, and the chances are that guilt or innocence will already be determined by everything else.

How sound would you feel a conviction was if it was purely based on one piece of evidence, and that evidence was claimed to have been obtained by breaking and entering?
 
Meridian said:
No it doesn't, that's US law. In the UK the judge decides what is allowed, subject to input (but not over-riding) by the barristers for both sides. It is entirely possible for the judge to allow illegally-obtained evidence, but he/she would almost certainly make sure that the jury were informed as to how the evidence was obtained. The Defence would almost certainly do the same anyway. The UK rules are far less drastic than the US ones. It appears, as is sually the case, the most people here know far more about US law than UK. Gotta love TV.
Click to expand...
Yup, the only strict prohibitions in UK law are against evidence obtained by torture and illegal electronic intercepts. Beyond that, the judge makes the call.

George Hincapie said:
Where prosecutions fall down, it's mainly for procedural or continuity errors; people not signing a form or an Exhibit label for example.
Click to expand...
Judges don't throw out cases on technicalities in this country. Unless there are so many errors or the single error is so serious that the court's trust in the investigation is undermined, it is virtually always in the interests of justice to overlook procedural mistakes
 
Last edited:
The Halk said:
As the law stands just now dsb, the judge would rule on it. I don't see how that would be illegal, but let's assume it was... then the judge might say it's ok.

I on the other hand don't agree and think that illegally obtained evidence should always be dismissed. It's not often that a verdict will hinge on one piece of evidence. If it's illegally obtained it's suspect at best, there's other questions if it's a frame up, and the chances are that guilt or innocence will already be determined by everything else.

How sound would you feel a conviction was if it was purely based on one piece of evidence, and that evidence was claimed to have been obtained by breaking and entering?
Click to expand...

Can you define illegally obtained.

If you mean a dodgy window cleaner breaks into a home thinks its a mucky video and takes it realises what it is and hands it in!

Or the incident is filmed by police without going through proper procedure.

If its because it cant be authenticated that's difficult argument in its self and if after being checked and analysed it cant be confirmed that its original again that's a legal an not moral issue or is it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom