The police must have found some good shit on this pos pedo if it’s being thrown out
I don’t know how it works in the UK, but here in Sweden if evidence was collected/handled in ways that are against the rules, it doesn’t mean that you can’t use it, as long as the evidence is found to be valid, it can be used.
There will however be a separate legal case if the evidence was found to have been collected illegally.
In the US, if the search is ruled invalid, all evidence collected is considered “fruit of the poisoned tree” and thus inadmissible in court. I believe UK courts work the same way.
If a search was found to be improper after a criminal case had been prosecuted successfully, it would be cause for the conviction to be overturned due to mistrial. Depending on whether the prosecution was in possession of enough other admissible evidence, this could result any new trial.
I’m not sure if the same rules apply in the UK regarding a new trial.
I get it, but damn, that seems pretty dumb from my point of view…
Does it not otherwise reward breaking rules to find evidence?
I don’t believe so, since if the evidence is found to have been collected illegaly, that in and of itself is a separate legal issue, it does not affect the validity of the evidence.
The court may dismiss evidence as invalid however, but that is not an automatic result of how it was collected or handled.
This kind of sentiment pages the way for authoritarian nanny states.
It really depends on the wider situation. In US, the police is untouchable, so there would be no conviction for unlawful behavior. In the Scandinavian countries, the police is held at a high standard, so they would be investigated for the behavior and fairly punished for it, potentially losing their job over it.
It becomes something that can be manipulated: A group of police can raid a house, One is them is in the pocket of the owner to do something that makes it illegal. Now none of the findings are admissible. And the ruling class continues to get away with whatever they want
Fair, but it can also be used against the working class as a form of harassment.
Accepting illegally obtained evidence encourages illegal raids until evidence is found.
The Patriot Act is in the same vein as allowing illegally obtained evidence.
Nothing is black and white, I hadn’t considered how the pedophile class might benefit from our current laws. So thank you for sharing. This issue is grayer for me.
It’s about limiting government overreach.
I get the theory, but I disagree with the effectiveness.
You are basically giving the police a tool to get rid of evidence they don’t want used.
Just make some random procedural error, and poof, that evidence can’t be used.
In our system, that tool does not exist, the evidence speaks for itself, if there are procedural errors, that is a separate matter.
It’s not dumb, it’s fruit from the poisoned tree, if not cops would just flout the rules.
Not that this evidence was in fact improperly gotten, I’m sure this is just the UK’s famously haughty aristocratic legal system helping out one of the card carrying members of the old boys club.
They still do that, they can even abuse these rules and make some procedural error deliberately to mess up an investigation.
With the Swedish system, the evidence is evaluated on it’s own, and procedural error are dealt with separately.
This gives the police fewer ways to completely legally get rid of evidence from being considered.
You are correct of that. In the US in fact, grand juries, congressional testimony, and idk what else, has been used to give immunity to perpetrators.
Ie, the Iran Contra douchebags, they gave them congressional immunity to force their testimony or some shit. It was before my time so not sure on the details.
Dude, I think not even Canada works the same way (it gets a hearing). What makes you think the UK is gonna be like America?
Most of the US legal system derived from the British one.
Because we both have English Common Law.
Also, evidence obtained illegally is often now used, under a decades old law, good samaritan law or some double spoke name, where if the police say they thought they were acting lawfully they use the evidence anyway.
They also I think from that same law codified violating the 4th amendment in using things that their warrants aren’t for. If they are looking for guns and find drugs, it’s inadmissable by the constitution but they use it anyway.
I thought that in the UK evidence is taken on it’s own merit regardless of how it was collected (eg https://www.foxwilliams.com/2019/10/21/the-admissibility-of-illegally-obtained-evidence/ ), but this BBC article suggests otherwise.
It seems like this is about the police being allowed to retain records of what they found rather than about the admissibility of it as evidence
Bro, just fucking hang him. No trial or evidence needed.
