England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence

Choo, Andrew L.-T.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_14

Andrew L.-T. Choo²

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

1531 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

In England and Wales the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE) introduced two exclusionary rules which have taken their place in a judicial landscape, where, traditionally, all relevant and credible evidence was always admissible, regardless of the legality of its acquisition. One rule excludes statements or confessions obtained through “oppression” which goes beyond a rule which previously excluded confessions obtained as a result of torture, which nonetheless could be excluded under exercise of the judge’s traditional discretion to exclude evidence which lacks credibility. But the most important rule, is that of Article 78 PACE, which calls upon the judge to balance all of the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the violation in the gathering of evidence, the seriousness of the crime, the interest violated, among other things, in determining whether 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”. This “fair trial” test has now been applied for nearly 30 years and has led to exclusion, for instance, in cases where the right to counsel has been violated, but virtually never in cases involving the violation of the right to privacy. English courts also never exclude physical evidence which is the fruit of an illegal search, or even an “oppressive” interrogation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
In this paper, I have drawn on work published elsewhere, particularly in Choo (2012).
2.
R v. Sang, [1980] A.C. 402 (H.L.).
3.
See generally Berger (2007), Choo and Nash (2003), Emmerson et al. (2007), Friedman (2002), Jackson (2005), Mirfield (2003), Ovey (1998), and Sharpe (2007).
4.
Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42, § 3(2)(b) (U.K.).
5.
Ibid, § 3(1).
6.
Ibid, § 4(2). The superior courts include the House of Lords (or, from October 2009, the Supreme Court), the High Court and the Court of Appeal. See § 4(5).
7.
Ibid, § 6(3)(a).
8.
Ibid, § 6(1).
9.
Ibid, § 6(2).
10.
Ibid, § 2(1)(a).
11.
Khan v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 e.h.r.r. 45, 1016. See generally Nash (2000), and Tain (2000).
12.
R. v. Khan, [1995] Q.B. 27.
13.
R. v. Khan, [1997] A.C. 558.
14.
Khan, 31 E.H.R.R. 45, 1023, §§ 27–28. See also Elahi v. United Kingdom (2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 645. Note that there is now legal regulation of covert surveillance in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
15.
Khan, 31 E.H.R.R. 45, 1027, § 38.
16.
Ibid, § 39.
17.
Ibid, § 40.
18.
Ibid, 1026–1027, § 37. See also P.G. v. United Kingdom (2008), 56 E.H.R.R. 51, 1272; see generally Nash (2002); Bykov v. Russia, No. 4378/02, ECHR, 10 March 2009, Lee Davies v. Belgium, No. 18704/05, ECHR, 28 July 2009.
19.
Allan v. United Kingdom (2002), 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143. See generally Nash (2003).
20.
Allan, 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143, 157–158, § 48.
21.
Ibid, 159, § 52.
22.
R. v. Sanghera, [2001] 1 Crim. App. 20, ¶ 299, [15]–[17].
23.
R. v. Loveridge, [2001] EWCA (Crim) 973 2 Crim. App. 29 ¶ 591, [33] (2001). See also R. v. Lawrence, [2002] Crim. LR 584.
24.
The Times, Apr. 28, 2000.
25.
Quotation from transcript from Smith Bernal.
26.
R. v. Button, [2005] EWCA (Crim) 516, ¶ 23.
27.
Ibid, ¶ 24.
28.
R. v. Hardy, [2002] EWCA (Crim) 3012, [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 30, ¶ 494, [18]–[19] (2003).
29.
A. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t (No. 2), [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 A.C. 221. See generally Choo and Nash (2007), Foster (2006), Grief (2006), Mackie (2006), Rasiah (2006), and Samiloff (2006).
30.
A. v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t (No.2), [2005], UKHL 71, 87 (italics added).
31.
Ibid, 150.
32.
Ibid, 148 per Lord Carswell.
33.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.) (2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 32, 667.
34.
Ibid, 689, § 82.
35.
Ibid, 693, § 105: “incriminating evidence—whether in the form of a confession or real evidence—obtained as a result of acts of violence or brutality or other forms of treatment which can be characterised as torture—should never be relied on as proof of the victim’s guilt, irrespective of its probative value”.
36.
Ibid, 694, § 107.
37.
Ibid.
38.
See generally Biçak (2001).
39.
R. v. Fulling, [1987] Q.B. 426, 432.
40.
R. v. Emmerson, (1991) 92 Crim. App. 284, 287. See also R. v. Foster [2003] EWCA (Crim) 178.
41.
R. v. Paris, (1993) 97 Crim. App. 99, 103.
42.
R. v. Goldenberg, (1989) 88 Crim. App. 285, 290. See also R. v. Wahab, [2002] EWCA (Crim) 1570, [2003] 1 Crim. App. 15, ¶ 232, [41].
43.
R. v. Law-Thompson, [1997] Crim. LR 674.
44.
See also R. v. Samuel, [2005] EWCA (Crim) 704, [45].
45.
R. v. McGovern, (1991) 92 Crim. App. 228.
46.
Ibid., See also R. v. Sylvester, [2002] EWCA (Crim) 1327.
47.
Ibid.
48.
R. v. Walker, [1998] Crim. LR 211.
49.
Ibid.
50.
R. v. Crampton, (1991) 92 Crim. App. 369.
51.
Sylvester, [2002], EWCA (Crim) 1327.
52.
Grevling (1997, 667–668).
53.
R. v. Samuel, [1988] Q.B. 615, 630. See also R. v. Jelen, (1990) 90 Crim. App. 456, 465: “The circumstances of each case are almost always different, and judges may well take different views in the proper exercise of their discretion even where the circumstances are similar. This is not an apt field for hard case law and well-founded distinctions between cases”.
54.
Thompson v. R., [1998] 2 W.L.R. 927, 949. See also R. v. O’Leary, (1988) 87 Crim. App. 387, 391; R. v. Christou, [1992] Q.B. 979, 989.
55.
R. v. Samuel, [1988] Q.B. 615; R. v. Alladice, (1988) 87 Crim. App. 380; R. v. Parris, (1989) 89 Crim. App. 68; R. v. Keenan, [1990] 2 Q.B. 54; R. v. Walsh, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 161; R. v. Canale, [1990] 2 All E.R. 187; R. v. Dunn, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 237; R. v. Dunford, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 150; R. v. Aspinall, [1999] 2 Crim. App. 115; R. v. Kirk, [2000] 1 W.L.R. 567; Watson v. DPP, [2003] EWHC (Admin) 1466, (2004) 168 J.P. 116; R. v. Gill, [2003] EWCA (Crim) 2256, [2003], 4 All E.R. 681.
56.
R. v. Walsh, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 161.
57.
R. v. Mason, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 139; R. v. Delaney, (1989) 88 Crim. App. 338.
58.
R. v. Walsh, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 161, 163. See also R. v. Parris, (1989) 89 Crim. App. 68.
59.
Alladice, 87 Crim. App. 380, 386–7.
60.
See also R. v. Dunford, (1990) 91 Crim. App. 150.
61.
R. v. McGovern, (1991) 92 Crim. App. 228.
62.
R. v. Ismail, [1990] Crim. LR 109.
63.
R. v. Glaves, [1993] Crim. LR 685.
64.
Y. v. DPP, [1991] Crim. LR 917. See also, R. v. Canale, [1990] 2 All E.R. 187; R. v. Gillard, (1991) 92 Crim. App. 61.
65.
R. v. Wood, [1994] Crim. LR 222.
66.
R. v. Singleton, [2002] EWCA (Crim) 459, [10].
67.
R. v. Neil, [1994] Crim. LR 441.
68.
See also R. v. Nelson, [1998] 2 Crim. App. 399, in which Neil was distinguished.
69.
Singleton, [2002] EWCA (Crim) 459, [11]. See also R. v. Ahmed, [2003] EWCA (Crim) 3627.
70.
See Mirfield (1997, 225).
71.
R. v. Webber, [2004] UKHL 1, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 404, [16].
72.
R. v. B., [2003] EWCA (Crim) 3080, [20].
73.
R. v. Bresa, [2005] EWCA (Crim) 1414, [51].
74.
Zander (2007, 170).
75.
Bucke et al. (2000, 27); See also Lindsay (2006).
76.
See generally Leng (2001).
77.
R. v. Argent, [1997] 2 Crim. App. 27, 33.
78.
See generally, Cooper (2006) and Wolchover (2005).
79.
Condron v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 E.H.R.R. 1, 21, §60 (italics added).
80.
In fact, as § 34(2A) makes clear, the drawing of inferences is prohibited unless the accused has been granted access to legal advice.
81.
R. v. Hoare, [2004] EWCA (Crim) 784, [2005] 1 Crim. App. 22, ¶ 355. See generally, Emanuel and Jennings (2004).
82.
R. v. Beckles, [2004] EWCA (Crim) 2766, [2005] 1 All E.R. 705. See generally, Malik (2005).
83.
Beckles, [2004] EWCA (Crim) 2766, [46].
84.
Murray v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 29.
85.
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, 1988, SI 1988/1987 (N. Ir.).
86.
Condron v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 E.H.R.R. 1. See generally Jennings and Rees (2000) and Stanley (2000).
87.
This quotation is taken from the website of the ECtHR. The wording of the passage as reported in Condron v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 E.H.R.R. 1, 22, § 61, is slightly different.
88.
Beckles v. United Kingdom (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 13,162, 179–180, §64.
89.
The Judicial Studies Board specimen direction on § 34 is accessible via http://www.jsboard.co.uk.
90.
Saunders v. United Kingdom (1997), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 337, §68.
91.
On the privilege against self-incrimination, see generally, Berger (2006), Penney (2003), Redmayne (2007), and Sedley (2001).
92.
See generally Butler (2000), Choo and Nash (2003, 37–43), Dennis (1995), Naismith (1997), Sudjic (2002), Ward and Gardner (2003), and Emmerson et al. (2007, 615–25).
93.
O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (G.C.) (2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 21, 397. See generally Birdling (2008), Burns (2007), and Spencer (2007).
94.
O’Halloran and Francis, 46 E.H.R.R. 21, 397, 414, § 57.
95.
Ibid, 415, § 58.
96.
Ibid, § 59.
97.
Ibid, 415–416, § 60.
98.
Ibid, 416, § 62.
99.
Cf., Meyerson (2007).
100.
Birdling (2008, 61) (italics in original).
101.
R. v. K., [2009] EWCA (Crim) 1640, [42].
102.
Ibid, [43].
103.
Funke v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 297. See generally Butler (2000).
104.
Saunders v. United Kingdom (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 337–338, § 69.
105.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.) (2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 32, 667, 695, § 114.
106.
J.B. v. Switzerland (2001), 30 E.H.R.R. CD 328.
107.
Ashworth (2001) and Dennis (2010, 169).
108.
A-G’s Reference (No. 7 of 2000), [2001] EWCA (Crim) 888, [2001] 2 Crim. App. 19, ¶ 286. See generally, Henderson (2001).
109.
Those particularly identified were the decisions of the House of Lords in R. v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex p Smith [1993] A.C. 1, AT&T Istel Ltd v. Tully [1993] A.C. 45, and R. v. Hertfordshire County Council, ex p Green Industries Ltd [2000] 2 W.L.R. 373.
110.
R. v. Allen, [2001] UKHL 45, [2002] 1 A.C. 509.
111.
Ibid, 29–30. An application to the ECtHR was held to be inadmissible: Allen v. United Kingdom (2002), 35 E.H.R.R. CD289, The Law, § 1. See also King v. United Kingdom (2003), 37 E.H.R.R. CD1.

Bibliography

Ashworth, A. 2001. The self-incrimination saga. Archbold News 5: 5–6.
Google Scholar
Berger, M. 2006. Compelled self-reporting and the principle against compelled self incrimination: Some comparative perspectives. European Human Rights Law Review, 25–38.
Google Scholar
Berger, M. 2007. Self-incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural issues in the enforcement of the right to silence. European Human Rights Law Review, 514–533.
Google Scholar
Biçak, A.V. 2001. Police and criminal evidence Act 1984, S 76(2): Re-emergence of the involuntariness test. Journal of Criminal Law 65: 85–92.
Google Scholar
Birdling, M. 2008. Self-incrimination goes to Strasbourg: O’Halloran and Francis v United Kingdom. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 12: 58–63.
Article Google Scholar
Bucke, T., R. Street, and D. Brown. 2000. The right of silence: The impact of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Home Office Research Study 199. Available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors199.pdf.
Burns, S. 2007. Good to talk? New Law Journal 157: 1454.
Google Scholar
Butler, A.S. 2000. Funke v France and the right against self-incrimination: A critical analysis. Criminal Law Forum 11: 461–505.
Article Google Scholar
Choo, A.L.-T. 2012. Evidence, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Choo, A.L.-T., and S. Nash. 2003. Evidence law in England and Wales: The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 7: 31–61.
Google Scholar
Choo, A.L.-T., and S. Nash. 2007. Improperly obtained evidence in the Commonwealth: Lessons for England and Wales? International Journal of Evidence and Proof 11: 75–105.
Article Google Scholar
Cooper, S. 2006. Legal advice and pre-trial silence—Unreasonable developments. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 10: 60–69.
Article Google Scholar
Dennis, I. 1995. Instrumental protection, human right or functional necessity? Reassessing the privilege against self-incrimination. Cambridge Law Journal 54: 342–376.
Article Google Scholar
Dennis, I.H. 2010. The law of evidence, 4th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Google Scholar
Emanuel, D., and A. Jennings. 2004. Legal advice to remain silent. Archbold News 5: 6–9.
Google Scholar
Emmerson, B., A. Ashworth, and A. Macdonald. 2007. Human rights and criminal justice, 2nd ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Google Scholar
Foster, S. 2006. Detention without trial and the admissibility of torture evidence. Justice of the Peace 170: 64–67.
Google Scholar
Friedman, D. 2002. From due deference to due process: Human rights litigation in the criminal law. European Human Rights Law Review, 216–238.
Google Scholar
Grevling, K. 1997. Fairness and the exclusion of evidence under section 78(1) of the police and criminal evidence act. Law Quarterly Review 113: 667–685.
Google Scholar
Grief, N. 2006. The exclusion of foreign torture evidence: A qualified victory for the rule of law. European Human Rights Law Review, 201–216.
Google Scholar
Henderson, A. 2001. Defining the limits of silence. Solicitors’ Journal 145: 432–433.
Google Scholar
Jackson, J.D. 2005. The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: Towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Modern Law Review 68: 737–764.
Article Google Scholar
Jennings, A.F., and E. Rees. 2000. Is silence still golden? Archbold News 5: 5–7.
Google Scholar
Leng, R. 2001. Silence pre-trial, reasonable expectations and the normative distortion of fact- finding. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 5: 240–256.
Google Scholar
Lindsay, J. 2006. We caution you—This is English but you might not understand it. The Times, 25 Apr 2006, Law (online version).
Google Scholar
Mackie, J. 2006. Life in crime. Solicitors’ Journal 150: 62.
Google Scholar
Malik, B. 2005. Silence on legal advice: Clarity but not justice?:R v Beckles. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 9: 211–216.
Article Google Scholar
Meyerson, D. 2007. Why courts should not balance rights against the public interest. Melbourne University Law Review 31: 873–902.
Google Scholar
Mirfield, P. 1997. Silence, confessions and improperly obtained evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Mirfield, P. 2003. Silence, innocence and human rights. In Essays for Colin Tapper, ed. P. Mirfield and R. Smith, 126–146. London: LexisNexis UK.
Google Scholar
Naismith, S.H. 1997. Self-incrimination—Fairness or freedom?. European Human Rights Law Review, 229–236.
Google Scholar
Nash, S. 2000. Secretly recorded conversations and the European convention on human rights: Khan v UK. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 4: 268–274.
Google Scholar
Nash, S. 2002. Balancing convention rights: PG and JH v United Kingdom. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 6: 125–129.
Google Scholar
Nash, S. 2003. Surreptitious interrogation and notions of fairness: Allan v United Kingdom. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 7: 137–141.
Google Scholar
Ovey, C. 1998. The European convention on human rights and the criminal lawyer: An introduction. Criminal Law Review, 4–15.
Google Scholar
Penney, S. 2003. What’s wrong with self-incrimination? The wayward path of self-incrimination law in the post-charter era—Part I: Justifications for rules preventing self-incrimination. Criminal Law Quarterly 48: 249–266.
Google Scholar
Rasiah, N. 2006. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2): Occupying the moral high ground? Modern Law Review 69: 995–1005.
Article Google Scholar
Redmayne, M. 2007. Rethinking the privilege against self-incrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27: 209–232.
Article Google Scholar
Samiloff, J. 2006. Interrogating evidence. New Law Journal 156: 5.
Google Scholar
Sedley, S. 2001. Wringing out the fault: Self-incrimination in the 21st century. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 52: 107–126.
Google Scholar
Sharpe, S. 2007. The European convention: A suspects’ charter?. Criminal Law Review, 848–860.
Google Scholar
Spencer, J.R. 2007. Curbing speed and limiting the right of silence. Cambridge Law Journal 66(3): 531–533.
Google Scholar
Stanley, P. 2000. European briefing. Solicitors’ Journal 144: 512.
Google Scholar
Sudjic, B. 2002. Self incrimination: Has the fat lady sung yet?. Scots Law Times, 328–330.
Google Scholar
Tain, P. 2000. Fair trial and the ECHR. Solicitors’ Journal 144: 590.
Google Scholar
Ward, T., and P. Gardner. 2003. The privilege against self incrimination: In search of legal certainty. European Human Rights Law Review, 388–399.
Google Scholar
Wolchover, D. 2005. Silent triumph of the coach and horses. Archbold News 9: 5–6.
Google Scholar
Zander, M. 2007. Cases and materials on the English legal system, 10th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Law School of the City University of London, Matrix Chambers, Griffin Building, Gray’s Inn, London, WC1R 5LN, UK
Andrew L.-T. Choo (Professor of Law)

Authors

Andrew L.-T. Choo
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew L.-T. Choo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA
Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Choo, A.LT. (2013). England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_14

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_14
Published: 16 October 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5347-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5348-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics