The following Corporate Crime practice note produced in partnership with Hannah Thomas of 2 Hare Court provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
An accused has no entitlement to have evidence excluded simply because it has been obtained unlawfully. To protect an accused from wrongful conviction, however, section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) gives the court a discretionary power to exclude evidence, having regard to all the circumstances including how the evidence was obtained, if admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
The provisions only apply to prosecution evidence and, the courts' discretion to exclude evidence in the Crown Court can only be exercised before the evidence is admitted. Once the evidence has been admitted, PACE 1984, s 78 will not apply; the defence will have to rely on the court's common law discretion to exclude evidence. This power is expressly preserved by PACE 1984. See R v Sat-Bhambra (1988) 88 Cr App Rep 55 (not reported by LexisNexis®).
The test the court will apply in deciding whether to exclude evidence is whether the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court should not admit it.
The power to exclude is discretionary. See the wording in the statute: ‘…the court may refuse to allow.’
As the power relates
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Tipping off and prejudicing an investigationIt would undermine the benefit to the authorities if, a suspicious activity report (SAR) having been made, the alleged offender were to be made aware of the interest in their activities so that they could take steps to cover up their misdeeds or disappear.
This Practice Note considers proprietary estoppel from a generic standpoint.For industry specific guidance on proprietary estoppel, see Practice Notes:•Estoppel and property law•Mortgages by estoppelProprietary estoppel—what is it?Unlike the other forms of estoppel (see Practice Note: Estoppel—what,
The Financial Conduct Authority Handbook (FCA Handbook) includes sourcebooks to regulate the conduct of business by a regulated firm relevant to insurers: the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) and the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS). This Practice Note considers how these
Source of the doctrine of the separation of powersThe origins of the doctrine are often traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), in which he identified the 'executive' and 'legislative' powers as needing to be separate.‘… it may be too great a temptation to human frailty, apt to
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.