Regina v Loveridge

[Donald ramsbottom]

>
>My understanding is that there is case law allowing the prosecution to have
>heard (viewed) evidence which itself was unlawfully obtained. No doubt you
>can remind me of the precedent. I have yet to hear anyone dispute seriously
>that this practice, accepted by the courts in this country as a satisfactory
>method of securing a conviction, is anything other than dangerous and
>oppressive.

>It would be interesting to have a legal opinion as to whether the precedent
>cuts both ways, i.e. that a defendant should be allowed to present evidence
>unlawfully obtained in his defence. Or that a member of a defence team
>should be exculpated for acting unlawfully in obtaining evidence on a
>client's behalf? I do rather think that no such interpretation would be
>allowed by the courts.

>The state reserves to itself powers and devolves to some of its servants
>authority to use lawfully powers which are withheld from the public at
>large. This may not always be pleasant and does provide one building block
>toward a possible tyranny at a future point. However, in many instances, the
>benefits that derive to society as a whole from the acceptance of such
>partiality are manifest and sufficient to permit the procedures more or less
>with good grace.  That said, in the specific under discussion, this tired
>old layman is in no doubt that the border between what constitutes justice
>and good law on the one hand and lynch law on the other has been well and
>truly crossed - to the ultimate detriment and disgrace of us all.
>Nevertheless, we may usefully remind ourselves that it is the public who, in
>large part, support the use of such measures and ensure that such matter
>never become an electoral issue of consequence. We have ourselves to blame.

Owen, You old cynic, you sound nearly as depressing as me and at least as
sceptical!

So far a  a case is concerned I have to say none spring to mind. What is
true is that the a judge at any trial both criminal or civil has very wide
powers to admit eveidence from whatever source he/she likes. They  have
obligations to comment or not to comment on the weight, veracity and source
of such evidence depending on the nature of the same. Books summing the
total paper output of Scandinavia have been written on the subject of
evidence and what is or is not admissable. There are cases which say that
illegality of evidence collection alone does not preclude its being
adduced, but that if it is adduced the judge needs to be careful in his
summing up and the weight to be attached to such evidence. IMHO I just
think we ought to have a rule similar to the Americans which says, unless
the evidence is collected legally it is inadmissable. Everyone would know
where they stood and I realize some guilty parties would go free, but the
LEAs may then collect evidence as they should and are authorised to do by
Parliament, rather than doing what they think is necessary and leaving it
to a judge in a subjective situation to admit or otherwise the evidence in
question.

So far as the defence adducing such evidence in a criminal trial is
concerned, I do not think that it comes up very often if at all. It may
well be that defence lawyers trying to prove innocence think it may well
prejudice their client if they admit any criminality at all, and of course
they rarely have the resources to collect evidence in the same way as the
state.

Such is our flawed system.


Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted