Irregularity Obtained Evidence Flashcards
Test ways for irregular evidence
Nature of the problem
Usually where a warrant or court order is required but has not been properly obtained or the terms of warrant have exceeded. The problem is evidence may be highly relevant
Lawrie v muir
Approach in crim cases. Irregularities require to be excused not lightly condoned. Whether it ought to be excused depends on the circumstances. Brings into play the discretionary principle of fairness to the accused. There are certain offences parliament has prescribed special procedure through stat. Sale of food and drugs
fairly v fishmongers of London
variation in the application of this approach. unlawful possession of salmon discovered by salmon inspector believed he had a warrant covered under food inpections allegedly.
held he did not. evidence= inadmissable
hm adv v turnbalal
police had a warrant to search for specific thing. trawled for evidence then brought challenges. HELD cannot trawl for such evidence = thrown out
circumstances excusing/ not excusing irregularities
importance of criteria of urgency and legal formality.
bulloch v hm adv
irregularity not excused. took time to get the warrant but it was a defective one. therefore irregularity not excused and evidence thrown out.
bell v hogg
police when doing a search with no warrant due to urgency as had they not acted the evidence would have been deliberately destroyed = ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE
CHALMERS V HM ADV
fruit of a poisoned tree. confession = inadmissible. C took police to finding belongings in field nothing else linking c with the evidence no dna ect. if found in his house then it would have a probative value.
hm adv v p
accused of rape interviewed without sol. spoke to friend who states that p was bragging about having sex the night he was accused of rape. HELD not fruit from a poisoned tree as it stands up by itself.
entrapment
is a claim by the accused that he was induced by deception into commiting a crim offence. most commonly the deception is by police officer or state.
weir v jessop
entrapment? evidence admitted in spite of an element of deception since no pressure encouragement or inducement to comit an offence which the appellant would never have been committing at all. accused all to willing to sell drugs
brown v hm
nature irregularity obtained evidence or abuse of process. judges dived as to whether it should by excluded= fundamental abuse of legal process.
jones v hm adv
rather then admit to the admissablity of trial. councillors should plea in barr of trial so as to prevent it from proceeding.
approach taken in civil actions
leading but unsat= rattary v rattary and macneill v macneill. a different approach is the duke of Argyll v duchess of Argyll.
(no public interest , unlike crim which is about protecting the rights of the accused sanction already so why sanction again,
baronetcy of pringle of stitchell
CIVIL APPROACH. Lawrie v muir can be applied. NO absolute rule on whether to adopt a piece of evidence or not among the circumstance are the NATURE OF EVIDENCE
THE PUPOSE FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS TO BE USED
MANNER IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED
DOES IT THROW ANY LIGHT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE
