The United Kingdom empowers the court to use its discretion to hear or not to hear any evidence. The important factors are the circumstances in which the evidence is obtained. The court may use its discretion not to hear evidence obtained illegally. If the court hears it, that testimony affects the fairness of the trial.This is to ensure fairness for both the plaintiff and the offender. It also prevents the plaintiff from having an advantage in the case. As a result of the acquisition of wrongfully obtained evidence the offender has disadvantage in litigation.
In the United States of America, the unlawfully obtained evidence is to be considered by the fruit of the poisonous tree principal that have been strictly prohibited. In case the court
…show more content…
Any evidence relating to the issue of the case is able to accept all under the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code Section 124 and the Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 226. However, there is evidence that is not able to include such as in the case of illegal or unfair means which is an exception to accept the hearing of evidence as well the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code Section 126. However, Thailand gives a permission to ignore the exception hearing of evidence in case of having a justice benefit. So, Thai criminal justice is an exception in the Thai Criminal Procedure Code Section 226/1 that is a flexible approach.
However the Criminal Procedure Code section 226/1has recently amended a new revision. The court has the authority to permit the use of discretion. It has widened and is not as strict as the past. This section amended new revision which provides a flexible law that can be applied to the situation in each case. If the hearing of evidence benefits the justice, fundamental rights and freedoms of the people “…evidence will be more advantageous in rendering justice than being disadvantageous due to an impact on the standard of criminal justice system or basic right and liberty of
…show more content…
By taking this drug, the police officer has a search warrant. The police officer required a recorded conversation as evidence which came from the wrongful act of wiretapping cannot be heard as evidence. Drugs or information acquired by virtue of wiretapping illegally were barred from hearing the evidence as well. Thus the court cannot use the evidence because the drug seems to like the fruit of the poisonous tree.
The first paragraph of the Criminal Procedure Code section 226/1 “...unless the admission of such evidence will be more advantageous in rendering justice than being disadvantageous due to an impact on the standard of criminal justice system or basic right and liberty of people” The discretion of the court could take into factors such laws.
However, the law allows the court discretion so it can hear evidence wrongfully obtained or acquired by virtue of the information or evidence obtained illegally. By virtue of the exception under the Criminal Procedure Code section 226/1 paragraph 2 “In consideration of admitting evidence according to the first paragraph, the Court shall consider all circumstances of the case together with the following factors: (1) Value to prove, importance and reliability of the
Victims’ rights include being informed of the investigation, being able to make a witness statement, being informed of the charges laid against the accused and being treated with sympathy and compassion. (Charter of Victim’s Rights NT 2016). The rights of the accused are outlined Article 14 of ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, which states that the accused must; be informed of the charges laid against them, have adequate time to prepare and choose a counsel of their choosing, be tried without undue delay, be tried in the presence of the court, not be compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt and be compensated by the court if wrongfully convicted (ICCPR 1966). These rights must be upheld to ensure equality before the law, however, when neglected justice is denied as illustrated in the Mallard and Raggett
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
1. Make specific and general discussion comments that define and differentiate between the inchoate crimes of "attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy." Give examples of each of these criminal law key term words.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
Search warrant is a request, in the name of the individuals, marked by a justice or other legal power, allowing an officer to search for specified particular property and carry it before the judge (Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, 1982). The search warrant is a standout amongst the most capable and important devices in the law requirement. While the procedure of seeking and getting a search warrant ought to be ordinary to most officers, there are numerous specialized and lawful pitfalls that can discredit a search warrant, lead to the concealment of confirmation or rejection of cases and have obligation suggestions for incorporated officers (Holcomb, 2003). Therefore, it is the approach of this office that all officers have a sound learning of the legitimate necessities connected with acquiring a search warrant keeping in mind the end goal to anticipate concealment of evidence. Supporting the Constitutional privileges of subjects and to administer open trust in this organization's order to do the police work in a moral and lawful way.
Section 173(h)(iii) and Section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) stated that a prima facie case will be established when the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence and if unrebutted or unexplained, the accused shall be convicted. This means, in order to establish a prima facie case, there are 3 issues that have to be fulfilled namely the elements of the offence, the nexus between the offence and the accused and that there is no break in the chain of evidence.
The Exceptions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Evidence Act illustrates the consequences of any information received from an accused person who is under the police officer’s custody and the fact that whether it amounts to a confession or not relates to the fact as to whether or not it may be proved and it has been strictly complied with the said section. This section serves as an exception to the law of confessions as provided under s.24, 25, and 26 of the Evidence Act. The admissibility of this section is not affected by section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In reference to the precedent case of Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors v Emperor, it discussed the necessary conditions required to operate the said section.
Without accepting confessions as legitimate form of evidence to be used in the court of law, the justice system would be in complete disarray what with most suspects making confessions to the police, also having a high likelihood of going on to be convicted. Confessional evidence is of great importance seeing as it is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Although it is of high regard in evidential law, it would be naïve to say that the law on confessions is down to perfection, especially with such high-profile cases such as the Guildford four or Birmingham six which brought to the surface the potential possibility of fabrication by police and perversion of the use of confessional evidence to bring about a certain result in a case. While known as the most powerful form of evidence to be adduced, it is also known as the “best and worst form of evidence” to deal with. Whether the implementations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has succeeded to remedy the dilemmas in respect to confession is up for discussion.
However, this could be seen as the judiciary lacking faith and trust in the jury to reach a satisfactory verdict. Therefore, judges should intervene during the course of the evidence to comment on the facts to guide the jury towards applying the relevant law on their