Irregularly Obtained Evidence

Question 1

Lawrie v Muir 1950 JC 19

Balancing act between liberty of individual and the interests of the state in securing evidence.

Answer 1

 Two inspectors who were employees of a company acting in association with the Milk Marketing Board got accesses to the accused’s property with the provision of a warrant.
 The inspectors found stolen milk bottles.
 However this warrant was only effective against parties who had signed an agreement with the Milk Marketing Board.
 The accused in this case had not entered into any such agreement.
 This meant that the accused’s assent to the search had been obtained by a positive misrepresentation made to her.
 HELD, the evidence was illegally obtained, so was inadmissible.

Question 2

Chalmers v HM Advocate 1954 JC 66 at 76.

Fruit of the poisoned tree

Answer 2

 Teenager was suspected of having been involved in a murder.
 He was cautioned, not charged, then made a statement to the police.
 From this statement the police found a bag in a filed that belonged to the murdered man.
 Went back to the station, charged the boy with murder, and the boy made another statement.
 Court acknowledged that the initial statement was ileegal, therefore the subsequent actings of finding the bag were also illegal.
 Therefore, real evidence found as a result of an illegal interview was held to be inadmissible.

Question 3

*Brown v HM Advocate 2002 SLT 809;

Entrapment - Plea in Bar of Trial

Answer 3

 Court held that entrapment was not a defence in court
 Court held that entrapment was a plea in bar of trial.
 Entrapment was so fundamentally wrong that if it could be proved before trial, no trial would take place.