Advertisement

Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 109–131 | Cite as

The Criminal Trial, the Rule of Law and the Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence

  • Hock Lai HoEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

If the criminal trial is aimed simply at ascertaining the truth of a criminal charge, it is inherently problematic to prevent the prosecution from adducing relevant evidence on the ground of its unlawful provenance. This article challenges the starting premise by replacing the epistemic focus with a political perspective. It offers a normative justification for the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence that is rooted in a theory of the criminal trial as a process of holding the executive to the rule of law. On this theory, it is the admission rather than exclusion of such evidence that is inherently problematic. The differences between this theory and others that are in currency will be noted, as will its implications and limitations.

Keywords

Evidence law Criminal trial Rule of law Unlawfully obtained evidence Exclusionary rule 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Different versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 symposium of the Law Faculties of the National University of Singapore, Singapore Management University and Hong Kong University and at the legal philosophy department of the University of Girona. I thank the participants for their comments and especially Professor Jordi Ferrer and Miss Carmen Vázquez for hosting my visit to Girona.

References

  1. Anderson, J., Williams, N. and Clegg L. (2009). The New Law of Evidence (2nd ed.). Chatswood: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. (1977). Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights. Criminal Law Review 723–735.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, A. (1998). Should the Police be allowed to Use Deceptive Practices? 114 Law Quarterly Review 108–140.Google Scholar
  4. Ashworth, A. (2003). Exploring the Integrity Principle in Evidence and Procedure. In P. Mirfield and R. Smith (Eds.), Essays for Colin Tapper. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  5. Ashworth, A. and Redmayne M. (2010). The Criminal Process (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Law Reform Commission (1985). EvidenceInterim (vol. 1). Report 26.Google Scholar
  7. Blackbourn J. and McGarrity, N. (2012). Listening and Hearings: Intercept Evidence in the Courtroom. Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law 257–282.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, R. and Fentin, D. (2010). ‘A More Majestic Conception’: The Importance of Judicial Integrity in Preserving the Exclusionary Rule. 13 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 47–80.Google Scholar
  9. Chapman, N. and McConnell, M. (2012). Due Process as Separation of Powers. 121 Yale Law Journal 1672–1807.Google Scholar
  10. Cloud, M. (1999). Judicial Review and the Exclusionary Rule. 26 Pepperdine Law Review 835–854.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, I. (2013). The Law of Evidence. (5th ed.). London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  12. Choo, A. (2013). England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence. In S. Thaman (Ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Duff, P. (2004). Admissibility of Improperly Obtained Evidence in the Scottish Criminal Trial: the Search for Principle. 8 Edinburgh Law Review 152–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duff, R., Farmer, L., Marshall S. and Tadros, V. (2007) The Trial on TrialTowards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  15. Galligan, D. (1988). More Scepticism about Scepticism. 8 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, R. (1991). The Exclusionary Rule and the Meaning of the Separation of Powers. 14 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 173–204.Google Scholar
  17. Haack, S. (2012). The Embedded Epistemologist: Dispatches from the Legal Front. 25 Ratio Juris 206–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho, H.L. (2006) What Does a Verdict Do? A Speech Act Analysis of Giving a Verdict. 4 International Commentary on Evidence, no. 2, article 1.Google Scholar
  19. Ho, H.L. (2011). State Entrapment. 31 Legal Studies 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho, H.L. (2012a). The Presumption of Innocence as a Human Right. In P. Roberts and J. Hunter (Eds.) Criminal Evidence and Human RightsReimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  21. Ho, H.L. (2012b) ‘National Values on Law and Order’ and the Discretion to Exclude Wrongfully Obtained Evidence. Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law 232–256.Google Scholar
  22. Hodgson, J. (2011). Safeguarding Suspects’ Rights in Europe: A Comparative Perspective. 14 New Criminal Law Review 611–665.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, J. and Summers, S. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kutz, C. (2000). ComplicityEthics and Law for a Collective Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal LawAn Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, M. (2011). Controlling Abuse to Maintain Control: The Exclusionary Rule in China. 43 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 629–695.Google Scholar
  27. List, C. and Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch, T. (2000). In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule. 23 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 711–752.Google Scholar
  29. Mirfield, P. (1997). Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Oaks, D. (1970). Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure. 37 University of Chicago Law Review 665–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Optican, S. (2011). ‘Lessons from Down Under’: The Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence in New Zealand as the Model for a Changing United States Exclusionary Rule. Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law 226–253.Google Scholar
  32. Postema, G. (forthcoming a). Fidelity in Law’s Commonwealth. Draft. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294665.
  33. Postema, G. (forthcoming b). Law’s Rule: Reflexivity, Mutual Accountability, and the Rule of Law. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294632.
  34. Presser, B. (2001). Public Policy, Police Interest: A Re-evaluation of the Judicial Discretion to Exclude Improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence. 25 Melbourne University Law Review 757–785.Google Scholar
  35. Redmayne, M. (2012). Exploring Entrapment. In L. Zedner and J. Roberts (Eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Reiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, P. (2012). Excluding Evidence as Protecting Constitutional or Human Rights? In L. Zedner and J. Roberts (Eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal Evidence. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1982). Report of The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (Cmnd. 8092).Google Scholar
  40. Sanders, A., Young, R. and Burton, M. (2010). Criminal Justice (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schrock, T. and Welsh, R. (1974). Up from Calandra: The Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Requirement. 59 Minnesota Law Review 251–384.Google Scholar
  42. Shklar, J. (1987). Political Theory and the Rule of Law. In A. Hutchinson and P. Monahan (Eds.), The Rule of LawIdeal or Ideology. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
  43. Stephen, J. (1886). Digest of the Law of Evidence (5th ed.). London: William Clowes and Sons.Google Scholar
  44. Sunderland, L. (1978). The Exclusionary Rule: A Requirement of Constitutional Principle. 69 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunderland, L. (1980). Liberals, Conservatives, and the Exclusionary Rule. 71 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tamanaha, B. (2004). On the Rule of LawHistory, Politics, Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tamanaha, B. (2012). The History and Elements of the Rule of Law. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 232–247.Google Scholar
  48. Taslitz, A. (2013). Hypocrisy, Corruption, and Illegitimacy: Why Judicial Integrity Justifies the Exclusionary Rule. 10 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 419–476.Google Scholar
  49. Thaman, S. (Ed.). (2013). Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Tomkovicz, J. (2011). Constitutional Exclusion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wigmore, J. (1922). Using Evidence Obtained by Illegal Search and Seizure. 8 American Bar Association Journal 479-484.Google Scholar
  52. Wigmore, J. (1961). Evidence in Trials at Common Law. (John T McNaughton rev. ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  53. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2012–2013). http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/WJP_Index_Report_2012.pdf.
  54. Zuckerman, A. (1987). Illegally-obtained Evidence—Discretion as a Guardian of Legitimacy. Current Legal Problems 55–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations