It is well known according to the law of England and Wales that evidence is criminal proceedings may be admissible in a court of law so far as it is relevant, even though it has been obtained illegally. There is no such doctrine such as the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine which will automatically render any evidence obtained unlawfully, inadmissible in a court of law and every by product of that evidence as well. The current video is not legal advice but informational in nature and explains whether evidence seized by the police during an extreme scenario should be admitted to Court. The admissibility of evidence at a court of law may make or even brake a case and that why it is significant. Even the though the unlawful obtaining of evidence does not preclude the admissibility of such evidence it may have a bearing on a finding of abuse of process of the proceedings or when its unlawful collection has compromised its quality to the point that that it may be unsafe to rely on it to convict the accused which in this event should not be admitted. Independently of its admissibility, evidence unlawfully obtained may be the subject for an application for a judicial review and a civil suit for damages against the police.
Now suppose that the Police have arrested someone for an offence. In this case are they allowed to search his house?
Yes they are allowed to search his house only under certain criteria according to the PACE 1984 ( Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).
According to section 18 which is entitled as entry and search after arrest it reads that:
“(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable may enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an [F1indictable]F1 offence, if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence, other than items subject to legal privilege, that relates—
(a)to that offence; or
(b)to some other [F1indictable]F1 offence which is connected with or similar to that offence.
(2)A constable may seize and retain anything for which he may search under subsection (1) above.”
Now suppose that an individual is arrested being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and the police subsequently enter his house without a warrant according to S 18 of PACE 1984 and while not having reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises evidence relating either to that offence or to some other offence which is connected with or similar to that offence, they find drugs in his house and he is charged for drug related offences. Should the Court admit the drugs as evidence in the accused trial? According to the common law what matters is its relevancy and not the manner in which it was obtained. However, if it is proved that either the quality of the evidence relating to the drug related offences is compromised or that it constitutes an abuse of process then it may not be admitted by the Court, affording the accused a big advantage in proving his case.
However where are we to draw the line between illegally obtained evidence that is admissible and legally obtained evidence that is not admissible?
If we take a moment to reflect on the above scenario, the police has clearly violated the fairness of proceedings by which it entitles itself to enter a individuals house, search and seize. It is not a case of violating a rule but an outright breach of his privacy. They had no prior search warrant and no reasonable grounds to enter. Such practices, threaten the foundation of liberty and privacy as no one is really free in a society where privacy is taken away on the authorities whim. Think how easy this system could be manipulated by the authorities or even used by citizens amongst themselves for espionage and ulterior motives and thus it would put fear in everyone. Thus even though its admissibility wouldn’t result in unfairness in the proceedings, it would result in unfairness in the way it was obtained by the police. But does that constitue abuse of process? Well it does since the police was acting oppressively when obtaining the evidence. Therefore under s 78 the Court may exclude the evidence which was so obtained in bad faith and oppressively. ( see Matto v Wolverhampton Crown Court [1987] RTR 337). However when the offence is a really serious one the crown may exercise its discretion in favour of the Police. So it all depends on the circumstances. A prior case which long before had laid the groundwork throughout for the exclusion of such evidence was the case of Jeffrey V. Black [1978] QB 490 in which it the Court of Appeal considered that the correct test for the admissibility was whether the evidence was relevant and not whether it had been properly obtained but it was troubled by the fact the accused consent for a search of his house had not been obtained as the police had no warrant or reasonable ground for suspecting that there was evidence on his premises, relating to the offence of stealing a sandwich from a pub as he had been searched while he was still outside of his house. Now the examples just described where flagrant breaches of the law and also oppressive means of obtaining evidence, however when the police execute the warrant unlawfully it is questionable whether the evidence may be excluded as it may not bee deemed oppressive, since there is no trickery involved or misle but of course it always depends on the facts of the case. What need to be understood is that the courts will not exercise their discretion under section 78 of PACE every time there is a non compliance with a rule as the discretion is only saved for exceptional circumstances. The person who’s privacy was violated though may file an application for a judicial review and later for a private lawsuit claiming compensation for trespass.
