Illegal Evidence Exclusion
1. Illegal Evidence and Exclusion: Overview
Illegal evidence refers to evidence obtained unlawfully or in violation of legal or constitutional rights, typically through methods like:
Unlawful searches and seizures
Torture or coercion
Violation of privacy
Breach of statutory procedures
Exclusionary Rule:
Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence from trials to protect fairness and uphold rights. This prevents the judiciary from being complicit in rights violations.
Purpose:
Protect constitutional and legal rights (e.g., right against self-incrimination, privacy).
Deter police misconduct.
Maintain integrity of the judicial system.
Key Principle:
Evidence obtained illegally cannot generally be used in court to convict someone.
2. Principles of Exclusion of Illegal Evidence
“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine: Evidence derived from illegal action is also inadmissible.
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Exclusion:
Some jurisdictions mandate exclusion (e.g., US Constitution, Fourth Amendment).
Others leave it to the court’s discretion, balancing probative value vs. rights violation.
Exceptions: Some evidence may still be admissible if obtained independently or in “good faith” by officials.
3. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – US
Facts: Police entered Dollree Mapp’s house without a proper warrant and found obscene materials.
Issue: Can illegally obtained evidence be used in state courts?
Judgment: US Supreme Court held that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible, extending the exclusionary rule to states.
Significance: Strengthened the protection against unlawful searches and seizures.
Principle: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible; states must comply with constitutional protections.
Case 2: Weeks v. United States (1914) – US
Facts: Police entered Weeks’ home without a warrant and seized papers used in trial.
Judgment: Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule at the federal level.
Significance: Laid the foundation for the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
Principle: Direct use of unlawfully seized evidence is prohibited.
Case 3: R v. Sang (1980) – UK
Facts: Police failed to comply with statutory rules when obtaining evidence.
Judgment: Court excluded evidence due to procedural irregularities.
Significance: Confirmed that evidence obtained in breach of statutory safeguards could be excluded to protect fairness.
Principle: Violations of statutory procedures can lead to exclusion, not just constitutional violations.
Case 4: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) – India
Facts: Accused argued that statements recorded during police custody were coerced.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through torture or coercion is inadmissible.
Significance: Affirmed Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) under Indian Constitution.
Principle: Coerced confessions are illegal evidence and cannot be used in trial.
Case 5: State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) – India
Facts: Police seized documents without following proper procedure under law.
Judgment: Evidence held inadmissible because procedural lapses violated statutory provisions.
Significance: Emphasized that statutory compliance is crucial for evidence admissibility.
Principle: Illegal collection of evidence, even if probative, can be excluded.
Case 6: R v. Leary (1972) – Canada
Facts: Confession obtained under police threat.
Judgment: Court excluded confession as evidence obtained under duress.
Significance: Reinforced that fairness of the trial supersedes prosecution’s convenience.
Principle: Coercion renders evidence inadmissible to maintain integrity of justice.
Case 7: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) – India
Facts: Evidence obtained through illegal phone tapping.
Judgment: Supreme Court held such evidence inadmissible.
Significance: Recognized privacy violation as ground for exclusion.
Principle: Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights (Article 21 – Right to Privacy) is illegal.
4. Key Takeaways
Exclusionary rule protects individual rights and prevents state abuse.
Illegal evidence includes: coerced confessions, unlawful search/seizure, procedural violations, or privacy breaches.
Courts examine: method of obtaining evidence, impact on fairness, statutory compliance, and constitutional safeguards.
International Perspective: Most democratic countries have recognized similar principles (US, UK, India, Canada).
Exceptions exist, but generally evidence obtained illegally is not used to convict.
RELATED Blog
comments