Debate: Illegally obtained evidence

dsb · 13 May 2012 at 12:44

paradisiac said:
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.

See this is where we differ its regardless what the kids did to find the video I have no issue with them damaging a building smashing the **** out of a safe to find the video as that was not there intention in finding. Of course they should be dealt with appropriately but as they have no relation to the video than i have no problem with it.

semi-pro waster · 13 May 2012 at 12:48

paradisiac said:
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.

But dismissing everything isn't what happens now, a judge can (and will) rule on a piece of evidences admissability. Sometimes the probative value of a piece of evidence that may be obtained from a tainted source can be sufficient to override the questions regarding the obtaining of it - normally less weight will be placed on it because it is not legally "pure" but that's not the same as it being automatically useless.

This particular state of affairs hasn't led to a scourge of vigilantism that I'm aware of.

paradisiac · 13 May 2012 at 12:49

dsb said:
See this is where we differ its regardless what the kids did to find the video I have no issue with them damaging a building smashing the **** out of a safe to find the video as that was not there intention in finding. Of course they should be dealt with appropriately but as they have no relation to the video than i have no problem with it.

but would that not leave to someone related to the defendant/victim, not paying someone to obtain the evidence? seeing as it would normally be submitted in this instance last minute, there wouldnt be time to find out if there was a link to the case. this would lead to the vigilanty cases. im not saying its right, but i think it would be soo hard to police during a case.

semi-pro waster said:
But dismissing everything isn't what happens now, a judge can (and will) rule on a piece of evidences admissability. Sometimes the probative value of a piece of evidence that may be obtained from a tainted source can be sufficient to override the questions regarding the obtaining of it - normally less weight will be placed on it because it is not legally "pure" but that's not the same as it being automatically useless.

This particular state of affairs hasn't led to a scourge of vigilantism that I'm aware of.

agreed, but there is a very strong chance it would be dismissed. therefore the risk of attempting it for the average person isnt worth it. but if there was, what seems to be the case with most peoples views, a situation where everything could be submitted and accepted, and then the source being dealt with if they can be identified, it would make the risks negligable, so breaking into what you believe to be suspects properties with the knowledge whatever you find would just be accepted, would make it worthwhile.

The Halk · 13 May 2012 at 13:00

dsb said:
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!

Dismiss it in both cases. How often do you think a window cleaner is going to steal a video and it turns out to be incriminating evidence?

How often do you think instead people will break into defendant's houses if they know the evidence will get used if they find any?

As for the police they should know better, as far as I'm aware they're not daft enough to make the effort of doing surveillance if it's not going to be used in court.

semi-pro waster · 13 May 2012 at 13:02

paradisiac said:
agreed, but there is a very strong chance it would be dismissed. therefore the risk of attempting it for the average person isnt worth it. but if there was, what seems to be the case with most peoples views, a situation where everything could be submitted and accepted, and then the source being dealt with if they can be identified, it would make the risks negligable, so breaking into what you believe to be suspects properties with the knowledge whatever you find would just be accepted, would make it worthwhile.

Your argument originally (and that of several other people) was that every piece of tainted evidence should be dismissed out of hand. That's fine as a viewpoint but I'm pointing out that it's not a legal obligation to dismiss all evidence that was obtained improperly.

I don't think anyone here is recommending people try to obtain evidence illegally in the hopes that it will be used in court, merely that it is sometimes possible for such evidence to be admitted. The circumstances where it is admitted may be exceptional and it will probably have less weight placed on it but there isn't an outright prohibition on all such evidence (except in such circumstances as TJM lists).

Sefirosu · 13 May 2012 at 13:03

If I had conclusive evidence that was inadmissible, I would spread it around as much as possible. Make anonymous websites www.petesmithersisguilty.com with the video on and stick up posters everywhere linking to it, etc.

Maybe get prosecuted but the whole public will know it's true.

paradisiac · 13 May 2012 at 13:13

semi-pro waster said:
Your argument originally (and that of several other people) was that every piece of tainted evidence should be dismissed out of hand. That's fine as a viewpoint but I'm pointing out that it's not a legal obligation to dismiss all evidence that was obtained improperly.

sorry, i didnt mean it that way, i didnt explain properly. my point was meant to be, everything should be treated as dismissable and accepted only on a case by case basis, and not have a set rule that evidence obtained illegally via XYZ is accpetable but evidence obtained illeglly via ABC should be dismissed. its easier to have a blanket 'ALL illegal evidence is treated as suspicious and with the possability of being thrown out' and then only accepted if the judge deems it is credible and required.
as halk said though, if the whole case hinged on this 1 piece of evidence, then they shouldnt be convicted anyway, as my understand is 'without reasonable doubt'. if 1 piece of evidence can make such a drastic change, then the other evidence would have to be suspect in the first place.

aln · 13 May 2012 at 13:28

Dimissing illegally obtained evidence is required in order to keep our citizens and police in check. This isn't a practice in place to help protect the guilty, it's there to stop the innocents' rights being trampled by would be vigilantes who have no due process. Accepting ill-gotten evidence is paramount to opening the floodgates, throwing due process out, and taking us a step closer to a totalitarian government. It's the same reasoning why you can't prosecute someone for doing something which is illegal now, but wasn't illegal when they done it.

Not all laws are moral laws. It's often said probably not a single person whos completely inoccent with regards to our obtuse legal systems in the west, protecting the individual from the state is easily as important as catching and punishing the 'bad guys'. I'd feel pretty ****** about someone getting off with murder on a technicality, but not so much with those getting off with victimless crimes. When you live in a nanny state, I'd say the need to protect due process is even greater.

semi-pro waster said:
This particular state of affairs hasn't led to a scourge of vigilantism that I'm aware of.

We have a lot of good people in our police force, so I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but we also have a lot of bullies and misused legislation in our legal system. I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of being fondled on the street for no particular reason other than I look young, it's fairly dark, and the bobby on the beat apparently has nothing better to do than interrupt my obvious plot to blow up local take-away. We pile more and more legislation on top, and we lose more and more rights (in the name of terrorism, or think of the children!) and I'd dare say that there is a deterioration of due process in the UK. For me, the primary function of a government should be to protect the civil rights of it's citizens, whether good, bad, young, old, white, black, yellow, brown, relgious, atheist, rich or poor.

I'm very much against the "nothing to hide" mantra that is widely supported, and I honestly think history has shown that any .gov needs to be kept in check, lest it stomp on you.

StriderX · 13 May 2012 at 13:55

The chance that a piece of evidence could have been obtained by say...massive amount of homicides, gruesome torture or threatening people's children.

Is enough to say that it is not worth it.

Xordium · 13 May 2012 at 14:17

Ok haven't read the thread but I have been involved in a case where it was decided "the court" had a duty to "find the truth" and therefore the admission of some specific evidence fell under that remit. Therefore, although the evidence was obtained illegally (it was unobtainable legally) it quite clearly shows the truth of the matter and therefore the use of that evidence was sanctioned. There was a weighing of a "lesser evil" being performed. This was highly unusual case though and broke many norms.

LordSplodge · 13 May 2012 at 15:05

The Halk said:
Dismiss the evidence - it's the only way. It's like negotiating with terrorists, it might sort that one case out, but it's going to cause a massive amount of trouble.

It's crystal clear.

Correct. Illegally obtained evidence should not be allowed. Plain and simple. It is, as you say, like negotiating with terrorists. Sets a dangerous precedent.

pepsilol · 13 May 2012 at 15:08

Its a trick, the video has been tampered with.

Aka Prison Break.

SexyGreyFox · 13 May 2012 at 15:25

LordSplodge said:
Correct. Illegally obtained evidence should not be allowed. Plain and simple. It is, as you say, like negotiating with terrorists. Sets a dangerous precedent.

Just playing Devils Advocate here.
So you have a child who was sexually abused & murdered and through illegal means a film came available that showed the person who did it.
Would you still maintain the same view and let the paedo killer walk free?

RDM · 13 May 2012 at 15:28

LordSplodge said:
Correct. Illegally obtained evidence should not be allowed. Plain and simple. It is, as you say, like negotiating with terrorists. Sets a dangerous precedent.

It doesn't seem to have set a dangerous precedent so far...

Meridian · 13 May 2012 at 15:33

RDM said:
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).

You are correct. Unlike the US, evidence is not excluded purely because it was obtained illegally. The Defence (or Prosecution) may object, and the judge may agree and throw it out. But there's a lot more leeway than under US rules. If the evidence is important, if the chain of evidence is reasonable etc etc, then the judge may well allow it. Even where not, the judge may still allow it, but with caveats attached. Each item and case is considered on its own merits.

M

Castiel · 13 May 2012 at 15:37

Meridian said:
You are correct. Unlike the US, evidence is not excluded purely because it was obtained illegally. The Defence (or Prosecution) may object, and the judge may agree and throw it out. But there's a lot more leeway than under US rules. If the evidence is important, if the chain of evidence is reasonable etc etc, then the judge may well allow it. Even where not, the judge may still allow it, but with caveats attached. Each item and case is considered on its own merits.

M

Which seems to be, on the face of it at least, a sensible way to treat illegally obtained evidence without compromising the system or setting undue precedent.