quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 Is this lied as in lied during questioning a suspect William or lied in court abou tsomething?

Lied on his written arrest report and lied in court.
Hung by his own dash video.

Winked at the judge and DA and walked away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 You'd always be open to prosecution if you obtain evidence illegally. If it was an error of judgement i.e. you believed you had grounds but a judge [or even s Sergeant] decided that your grounds were weak you'd get a warning. If it was egregiously illegal you'd be kicked out of the police service at a minimum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 You'd always be open to prosecution if you obtain evidence illegally. If it was an error of judgement i.e. you believed you had grounds but a judge [or even s Sergeant] decided that your grounds were weak you'd get a warning. If it was egregiously illegal you'd be kicked out of the police service at a minimum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missdressed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 You'd always be open to prosecution if you obtain evidence illegally. If it was an error of judgement i.e. you believed you had grounds but a judge [or even s Sergeant] decided that your grounds were weak you'd get a warning. If it was egregiously illegal you'd be kicked out of the police service at a minimum.

Absolutely. But that would be a separate trial, in the UK, and the evidence could still be admissible after a voire dire. If the judge decided it was admissible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Wouldn't it be nice if a police officer who is shown to be lying in court had the same penalty as the rest of us?

The law re perjury applies to them exactly as it does to you or me or anyone except Bill Clinton.

Seriously, how many police officers have you seen sent to jail for perjury?

I once proved that one lied and he finally admitted it. He and the judge kinda smirked at each other and he banged the gavel not guilty. Cost to the officer? ZERO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missdressed

OK ...

Under the common law in R v Christie “it is desirable in certain circumstances to relax the strict application of the law of evidence”

Also


“….whether in the light of the considerations ……the evidence, if admitted, would undermine the justice of the trial…. For the conviction of the guilty is a public interest as is the acquittal of the innocent”

As Per Lord Scarman Sang [1979] at 456

Again,

“… the function of the judge at a criminal trial as respects the admission of evidence is to ensure that the accused has a fair trial according to law. It is no part of the judge’s function to exercise disciplinary powers over the police or prosecution as respects the way in which evidence to be used at the trial is obtained by them”
Per Lord Diplock Sang [1979] at 436

Sang - Affirmed judicial discretion to exclude evidence if prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value
Not concerned with how evidence obtained but how used by the prosecution at trial
Refers to evidence collected after the commission of the offence is completed




Leatham (1861) 8 Cox C.C. 498 at 501
“It matters not how you get it, if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence” - still good law today

R v Christie [1914] AC 545 at 546

R v Payne (1963) 1 All ER 848 is the only example of the common law being used to exclude evidence



S 82 (3) PACE 1984 preserves common law discretion of the judge to exclude if he deems it appropriate




I'm most familiar with PACE NI Order, but the provisions are mirrored in the UK order, just the Section Nos are different - Art 70 (3) of PACE NI Order states  Nothing in this Part shall prejudice any power of a court to exclude evidence (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise) at its discretion.

The statement in PACE is
In any criminal proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely 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.

You will note, it's only whether it would be fair or not for the evidence to be admitted, and not a duty to exclude if improperly obtained.

It can be excluded as a breach of PACE but this is at the discretion of the judge, it is anything but automatic.

Entrapment is covered in PACE, but I'm losing the will to live, basically In deciding whether to exclude evidence the court will consider
Whether the officer was enticing the defendant to commit an offence
The nature of the entrapment
How active or passive the officers role was


Under City Council v Amin [2001] 1 W.L.R 1071
The accused ‘should not be incited, instigated, persuaded, pressurised or wheedled into committing the offence.’

But remember entrapment is not a defence at law to a criminal charge.

The improper searches cases are

R v Leatham (1861)
Jones v Owen (1865) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501
Mc Cleod v UK [1999] 27 EHRR 493

The Sang case was confirmed in Morgans v DPP as follows :

”As a general rule evidence is admissible irrespective of the means used to obtain that evidence: Reg. v. Sang [1980] A.C. 402. The question whether or not an offence was committed in the course of obtaining evidence by intercepting a communication by post or by means of a public telephone system is, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, irrelevant to the admissibility of that evidence. “

Also, there may be a challenge under the Wednesbury unreasonable test, and also the defendant would be entitled to ask questions of the police as to how the evidence was obtained and ask in a voir dire if the court would exclude it. If it were included, the defendant would be entitled to have the police officers questioned in open court.


That's just from brief notes, I can be more comprehensive if required.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 Police cannot just turn up at your home and rummage through till they find something to convict you for. If you are arrested for an offence that is indictable your home can be searched for evidence pertaining to that crime and crimes of a similar nature under Section 18 or 18/5 of P.A.C.E.. If you are arrested for an indictable offence and have immediately left a property that can be searched to under section 32 of P.A.C.E. If you have reasonable grounds to suspect life or property might be in serious danger you can enter a property. You can also enter undfer section 17 of P.A.C.E. to arrest someone in the property or if you have reasonable grounds to believe they are there. You can also enter to prevent a breach of the peace. During any of these searches or entries you can seize evidence pertaining to other crimes under section 19 of P.A.C.E.  However the caveat to that is your search has to be proportionate to what you are searching for. for example if you're looking for a person you couldn't search in someone's sock drawer.

You can't just kick someone's door because you feel like it and rummage about.

''I don't care about police using deceit or lies.'' And that's your perrogative but please don't tuen this into some shite about how it's MERICA LAND OF THE FREE BABY THE BRITS LIVE UNDER THE HEEL OF TYRANNY because it's simply not true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Wouldn't it be nice if a police officer who is shown to be lying in court had the same penalty as the rest of us?

The law re perjury applies to them exactly as it does to you or me or anyone except Bill Clinton.

Seriously, how many police officers have you seen sent to jail for perjury?

I once proved that one lied and he finally admitted it. He and the judge kinda smirked at each other and he banged the gavel not guilty. Cost to the officer? ZERO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

1. We're not in Kansas, Dorothy. Or Ohio.
2. The only point taken from the case is: In Ohio, the prosecution cannot use silence in the police station to impeach subsequent testimony given in court.

None of it applies anywhere but Ohio.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

It occurs to me that we are watching on TV the opposite of the premise presented here.
George Zimmerman cooperated fully with the police, even doing a fully videotaped walkthrough the next day.
It makes him look good.
He would be giving the jury a different impression altogether had he clammed up, taken the fifth, and asked for an attorney.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Did you not read about the case I linked? Basically the police and a witness testified he wasn't upset enough and not overtaken by grief enough. Since every person handles stress and emotional upset differently demeanor in those sorts of situations should not be used against someone. Especially if it is then transmitted by a biased source who believes the emotional outburst or lack of outburst or perceived fake outburst or perceived too little emotion etc. indicates guilt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Depending on the question s asked they can create the impression of guilt. Often the cops aren't talking to you to clear you, maybe not to set you up, but not to clear you. Having an attorney present is just common sense.
Sounds like this guy got convicted of being an idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So far. In general talking to the police never helps you and can do you very great harm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

It occurs to me that we are watching on TV the opposite of the premise presented here.
George Zimmerman cooperated fully with the police, even doing a fully videotaped walkthrough the next day.
It makes him look good.
He would be giving the jury a different impression altogether had he clammed up, taken the fifth, and asked for an attorney.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Wouldn't it be nice if a police officer who is shown to be lying in court had the same penalty as the rest of us?

The law re perjury applies to them exactly as it does to you or me or anyone except Bill Clinton.

Seriously, how many police officers have you seen sent to jail for perjury?

I once proved that one lied and he finally admitted it. He and the judge kinda smirked at each other and he banged the gavel not guilty. Cost to the officer? ZERO.

A special prosecutor indicted 3 prosecutors and 4 sheriff's deputies for conspiracy in the Rolando Cruz case, basically it was a conspiracy to commit perjury and suborn perjury. Unfortunately the trial judge let them all go.