Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:10:09.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Fair trials and the use of improperly obtained evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

John D. Jackson
Affiliation:
University College Dublin
Sarah J. Summers
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The manner in which evidence is collected, regulated and assessed has the potential to impact on the fairness of the criminal trial. Most legal systems, irrespective of their exclusionary or ‘inclusionary’ tendencies, provide for rules which prohibit in certain circumstances the use of particular types of evidence, regardless of its probative value. Explaining the nature of the relationship between fairness and improperly obtained evidence and determining when the use of such evidence will undermine the fairness of the proceedings is less than straightforward. These difficulties are reflected in the reluctance of the international bodies responsible for regulating the fairness of criminal proceedings expressly to develop principles to regulate the use of evidence. That is not to say that the potential for matters involving criminal evidence to impact on the fairness of the trial has been completely ignored, only that in many respects these international bodies have been slow to explain the connection between improperly obtained evidence and fairness and that this has necessarily had an impact on the nature of the regulation.

The relationship between the treatment of criminal evidence and the fairness of criminal proceedings is expressly recognised in provisions such as Article 6(3)(d) of the ECHR and in the ECtHR's case law on the privilege against self-incrimination, which has been interpreted as lying at the heart of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The ECtHR nevertheless seems ill at ease in its role as a regulator of evidential matters. It is not uncommon to read statements in its case law to the effect that, ‘[w]hile Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law’; or that ‘it is not the role of the ECtHR to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence – for example, unlawfully obtained evidence – may be admissible, or indeed, whether the applicant was guilty or not’. Such statements are often cited in the literature on the subject as substantiating the claim that the ECtHR has little to say about the regulation of criminal evidence.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence
Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions
, pp. 151 - 198
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Reid, K.A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human RightsLondonSweet & Maxwell 2008Google Scholar
Harris, D. J.O’Boyle, M.Bates, E. P.Buckley, C. M.Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human RightsOxford University Press 2009Google Scholar
Peukert, W.Artikel 6 (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren)Europäsiche Menschenrechtskonvention KommentarKehl am RheinNP Engel 2009Google Scholar
Wohlers, W.Legalität und Opportunität im teilharmonisierten europäischen Strafverfahren und der Grundsatz ne bis in idemFestschrift für Ulrich EisenbergMunichC. H. Beck 2009 807Google Scholar
Jackson, J.The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment 2005 68 Modern Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, C. M.Mapp goes Abroad 2001 52 Case Western Law Review375Google Scholar
Dawson, J. B.The Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Study 1982 31 International and Comparative Law Quarterly513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, U.Beweisrecht der StPO: SpezialkommentarMunichC. H. Beck 2008 98Google Scholar
1783
1861
Wigmore, J. H.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1940Google Scholar
1980
Bentham, J.A Treatise on Judicial EvidenceLondonPaget 1825 2Google Scholar
Twining, W.Theories of Evidence: Bentham and WigmoreLondonWeidenfeld & Nicolson 1985Google Scholar
Galligan, D. J.More Scepticism about Scepticism 1988 8 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal TrialOxfordHart 2007Google Scholar
Donatsch, A.Hansjakob, T.Lieber, V.Kommentar zur Schweizerischen StrafprozessordnungZurichSchulthess 2010 601Google Scholar
Dennis, I. H.The Law of EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 2010Google Scholar
Mirfield, P.Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained EvidenceOxfordClarendon Press 1997Google Scholar
Perrin, L. T.Caldwell, H. M.Chase, C. A.Fagan, R. W.If It's Broken, Fix It: Moving Beyond the Exclusionary Rule 1998 83 Iowa Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
1961
Allen, R. J.Hoffmann, J. L.Livingston, D. A.Stuntz, W. J.Comprehensive Criminal ProcedureNew YorkAspen 2005 346Google Scholar
1984
Orfield, M.The Exclusionary Rule and Deterrence: An Empirical Study of Chicago Narcotics Officers 1987 54 University of Chicago Law Review1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. 1999
Sklansky, D. A.Is the Exclusionary Rule Obsolete? 2008 5 Ohio Journal of Criminal LawGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. 1977
Ashworth, A.Exploring the Integrity Principle in Evidence and ProcedureEssays for Colin TapperLondonReed Elsevier 2003 111Google Scholar
Redmayne, M.Theorising the Criminal Trial 2009 12 New Criminal Law Review287Google Scholar
Duff, P.Admissibility of Improperly Obtained Physical Evidence in the Scottish Criminal Trial: The Search for Principle 2004 8 Edinburgh Law Review152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasiah, N.: Occupying the Moral High Ground? 2006 69 Modern Law Review995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1976
Hoffmann, Lord 2006
Vargha, J.Die Verteidigung in StrafsachenViennaVerlag der Manz'schen Hof- und Universitäts-Buchhandlung 1879Google Scholar
Langbein, J.The Origins of the Adversary Criminal TrialOxford University Press 2003 277Google Scholar
Friedman, D. 2006
Bonner, R. 2008
2003
Roxin, C.Kann staatliche Folter in Ausnahmefällen zulässig oder wenigstens straflos sein?Menschengerechtes Strafrecht: Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. GeburtstagMunichC. H. Beck 2005Google Scholar
Brügger, W. 2000
2010
Thienel, T.Foreign Acts of Torture and the Admissibility of Evidence 2006 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, G.Was it Like This for the Irish 2008 30 London Review of BooksGoogle Scholar
Reed, R.Murdoch, J.A Guide to Human Rights Law in ScotlandEdinburghTottel 2008Google Scholar
Erdal, U.Burden and Standard of Proof in Proceedings under the European Convention 2001 26 European Law Review, Supplement (Human Rights)68Google Scholar
1952
Ashworth, A. 2007
Pattenden, R.Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings of Third Party and Real Evidence Obtained by Methods Prohibited by UNCAT 2006 10 International Journal of Evidence and ProofCrossRefGoogle Scholar
1974
1996
Schmid, N.Handbuch des schweizerischen StrafprozessrechtsZurichDike 2009Google Scholar
1981
Pattenden, R.Case Comment: Evidence Obtained by Inhuman Treatment in Violation of Article 3 – European Court of Human Rights 2009 13 International Journal of Evidence and ProofGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.Do Rules of Evidence Apply Only in the Courtroom? Deceptive Interrogation in the United States and Germany 2008 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuntz, W.Privacy's Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure 93 1995 Michigan Law Review1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uglow, S. 1999
Fishman, C. S.Interception of Communications in Exigent Circumstances: The Fourth Amendment, Federal Legislation, and the United States Department of Justice 1987 22 Georgia Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Godenzi, G.Private Beweisbeschaffung im Strafprozess: Eine Studie zu strafprozessualen Beweisverboten im schweizerischen und deutschen RechtZurichSchulthess 2008Google Scholar
Wolchover, D.Heaton-Armstrong, A.Confession EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 1996Google Scholar
1964
Kühne, H.-H.Strafprozessrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen StrafverfahrensrechtsHeidelbergC. F. Müller 2003 459Google Scholar
Jackson, J.Human Rights, Criminal Justice and the Future of the Common Law 2006 57 Northern Ireland Legal QuarterlyGoogle Scholar
Greer, D. S.The Admissibility of Confessions under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1980 31 Northern Ireland Legal QuarterlyGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J.Northern Ireland Supplement to Cross on EvidenceBelfastSLS Legal Publications 1983Google Scholar
Jackson, J.Doran, S.Judge without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary SystemOxfordClarendon Press 1995 37Google Scholar
Trechsel, S.Human Rights in Criminal ProceedingsOxford University Press 2005 113Google Scholar
1984
Amsterdam, A.Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment 1979 58 Minnesota Law Review349Google Scholar
Schmid, N.Handbuch des schweizerischen StrafprozessrechtsZurichDike 2009Google Scholar
Ormerod, D. C.Rees, T. 2002
Strandbakken, A.Disclosure of Evidence by the ProsecutionFestschrift für Heike JungBaden BadenNomos 2007 945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1932
Allen, R. J.Luttrell, M.Kreeger, A.Clarifying Entrapment 1999 89 Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A.Ormerod, D. 2002
Duff, R. A.I Might be Guilty, But You Can't Try Me: Estoppel and Other Bars to Trial 2005 1 Ohio State Journal of Criminal LawGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, A. 2002
Whelan, M. F. J.Lead Us Not into (Unwarranted) Temptation: A Proposal to Replace the Entrapment Defence with a Reasonable Suspicion Requirement 1985 133 University of Pennsylvania Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squires, D. 2006
Roxin, C.Schünemann, B.StrafverfahrensrechtMunichC. H. Beck 2009Google Scholar
United States 1939
1963
1988
2006
2000
Gleß, S.The Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal TrialGerman National Reports to the 18th International Congress of Comparative LawTübingenMohr Siebeck 2010 692Google Scholar
Henkel, H.StrafverfahrensrechtStuttgartW. Kohlhammer 1968Google Scholar
Wolter, J. 1984
Ormerod, D. 2003
Chalmers, J.More Fair Play for Suspects: 2007 11 Edinburgh Law ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×