Admissibility of Improperly Obtained Evidence
s 78 PACE
introduced by Lord Scarman to get parliament to place a limitation on the way police obtain
evidence and prevent them from doing so by unfair means.
78 (1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution
proposes to rely on to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the
circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the
admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the
proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Provides that trial judges can exclude
evidence that has been unfairly obtained
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude
evidence.
-R v Mason [1988]: M arrested and questioned about involved with arson incident, the
officer said no evidence had connected to the crime but they falsely tell him his fingerprints
had been
found at the scene n the officers falsely confirmed to a solicitor that m fingerprints had been
found at scene n this lead to confession of involved n this was held to have been obtained
improperly n couldn’t be admissible to the courts.
-R v Christou and Wright[1992] & Bailey [1993] 3 All ER 513
SEARCH OF PERSONS ARRESTED AWAY FROM A POLICE STATION
PACE s.32:
Power to search an arrested person if PC has reasonable grounds for believing that:
i. The arrestee may be a danger to himself/others; OR
ii. Arrestee may have concealed item that may be used to escape from custody; OR
iii. Arrestee has evidence on his person relating to any offence NB accompanying power of
seizure of items in (i) - (iii) above
SEARCH OF PREMISES AFTER ARREST AWAY FROM POLICE STATION
PACE s.32: search needs to be done immediately after the arrest AND does not
authorize seizure
Power of entry, search where reasonable belief that there is evidence of the offence for
which person arrested on the premises where he/she was arrested or where the person was
immediately prior to arrest
-R v Badham [1987] Crim LR 202:entry & search 4hrs after arrest not lawful; repeat visits not
lawful but see s.18 PACE to avoid the need for ‘immediate entry
-R v Hewitson v CC of Dorset (2004) Jan 6, The Times
-Principle of proportionality in this context – s.32(3)
-s.32 does not confer power to seize –see instead s.19
S.19 Seizures:
o S.32 does not explicitly authorise seizure (only entry & search)
o S.19 allows a constable lawfully on the premises (via s.32) to seize anything on the
premises which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing is evidence of or has
been obtained in connection with the commission of any offence.
-Entick v Carrington: established that state authorities have no greater inherent legal
capacity
to enter onto private property than that which individuals possess
o Police officers (like anyone else) can enter upon private property if they have, or
can
be assumed to have permission
s 78 PACE
introduced by Lord Scarman to get parliament to place a limitation on the way police obtain
evidence and prevent them from doing so by unfair means.
78 (1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution
proposes to rely on to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the
circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the
admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the
proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Provides that trial judges can exclude
evidence that has been unfairly obtained
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude
evidence.
-R v Mason [1988]: M arrested and questioned about involved with arson incident, the
officer said no evidence had connected to the crime but they falsely tell him his fingerprints
had been
found at the scene n the officers falsely confirmed to a solicitor that m fingerprints had been
found at scene n this lead to confession of involved n this was held to have been obtained
improperly n couldn’t be admissible to the courts.
-R v Christou and Wright[1992] & Bailey [1993] 3 All ER 513
SEARCH OF PERSONS ARRESTED AWAY FROM A POLICE STATION
PACE s.32:
Power to search an arrested person if PC has reasonable grounds for believing that:
i. The arrestee may be a danger to himself/others; OR
ii. Arrestee may have concealed item that may be used to escape from custody; OR
iii. Arrestee has evidence on his person relating to any offence NB accompanying power of
seizure of items in (i) - (iii) above
SEARCH OF PREMISES AFTER ARREST AWAY FROM POLICE STATION
PACE s.32: search needs to be done immediately after the arrest AND does not
authorize seizure
Power of entry, search where reasonable belief that there is evidence of the offence for
which person arrested on the premises where he/she was arrested or where the person was
immediately prior to arrest
-R v Badham [1987] Crim LR 202:entry & search 4hrs after arrest not lawful; repeat visits not
lawful but see s.18 PACE to avoid the need for ‘immediate entry
-R v Hewitson v CC of Dorset (2004) Jan 6, The Times
-Principle of proportionality in this context – s.32(3)
-s.32 does not confer power to seize –see instead s.19
S.19 Seizures:
o S.32 does not explicitly authorise seizure (only entry & search)
o S.19 allows a constable lawfully on the premises (via s.32) to seize anything on the
premises which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing is evidence of or has
been obtained in connection with the commission of any offence.
-Entick v Carrington: established that state authorities have no greater inherent legal
capacity
to enter onto private property than that which individuals possess
o Police officers (like anyone else) can enter upon private property if they have, or
can
be assumed to have permission
