Racial Profiling In Canada
1. Introduction to Evidence Exclusion
Evidence exclusion is a principle in law that allows a court to refuse the admission of certain evidence in a trial, even if it is relevant. The rationale includes:
Protecting fundamental rights (e.g., right against self-incrimination, privacy)
Ensuring fair trial and preventing unfair prejudice
Maintaining procedural fairness and legality of evidence gathering
The courts interpret the law of evidence, balancing relevance against illegality or unfairness in obtaining it.
Two major frameworks exist:
Exclusionary Rule (U.S. and some common law jurisdictions): Evidence obtained illegally (e.g., without a warrant) is inadmissible.
Discretionary Exclusion (Indian Evidence Law / Section 24, 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act): Evidence may be excluded if obtained through coercion, torture, or in violation of legal procedure.
2. Key Cases on Evidence Exclusion
Case 1: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) – U.S.
Facts:
Police entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a proper search warrant and seized obscene materials. She was convicted based on this evidence.
Issue:
Can evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) be admitted?
Ruling:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in criminal trials.
Significance:
Reinforced the exclusionary rule
Emphasized constitutional protection against unlawful searches
Judicial interpretation stressed that the end does not justify the means in evidence collection
Case 2: R v. Sang (1980), UK
Facts:
The police obtained confessions from Sang under pressure. He argued that the confession was coerced.
Issue:
Can involuntary confessions be admitted as evidence?
Ruling:
The House of Lords ruled that evidence obtained by oppression or inducement cannot be admitted.
Principle:
Evidence must be voluntary
Courts interpret “voluntariness” broadly, including psychological pressure
Protects against abuse of police power
Case 3: State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), India
Facts:
Police conducted an illegal detention and obtained a confession from Gurmit Singh.
Issue:
Whether the confession obtained without proper legal procedure can be admitted?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court of India held that:
Section 24 & 25 of the Indian Evidence Act make involuntary confessions inadmissible
Confessions made under police duress or torture are void
Significance:
Judicial interpretation reinforced protection of human rights under criminal law
Courts have discretion to exclude illegally obtained confessions
Case 4: R v. Brown (1996), UK
Facts:
Police seized personal documents and diaries during a search. Brown argued they were obtained in violation of privacy rights.
Issue:
Should such evidence be excluded despite relevance?
Ruling:
Courts applied balancing test: admissibility vs unfair prejudice
Held that certain evidence could be excluded to ensure fair trial
Principle:
Judicial discretion is essential
Evidence exclusion is not absolute but dependent on context and fairness
Case 5: People v. Collins (1968), California, U.S.
Facts:
Prosecution relied heavily on statistical and identification evidence.
Issue:
Was the evidence sufficiently reliable and legally admissible?
Ruling:
The court excluded the probabilistic evidence as misleading and prejudicial
Highlighted the principle that relevance alone is insufficient
Significance:
Courts interpret evidence quality and reliability
Emphasizes protection against jury being misled by unreliable evidence
Case 6: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), India
Facts:
Evidence of torture during police custody was used to secure convictions.
Issue:
Can evidence obtained under custodial torture be admitted?
Ruling:
Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained under violence, coercion, or torture is inadmissible
Introduced detailed guidelines for custodial procedure to protect human rights
Principle:
Courts protect constitutional rights even if it complicates prosecution
Evidence exclusion safeguards due process
3. Key Principles Derived from Judicial Interpretation
Voluntariness of Confession: Evidence must not be obtained through coercion or oppression (R v. Sang; Gurmit Singh).
Legality of Collection: Searches and seizures must follow legal procedure (Mapp v. Ohio).
Relevance vs Prejudice: Even relevant evidence can be excluded if unfairly prejudicial or misleading (R v. Brown; Collins).
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Torture or illegal detention vitiates evidence (D.K. Basu; Gurmit Singh).
Judicial Discretion: Courts balance public interest in truth vs fairness in trial.
4. Conclusion
Judicial interpretation of evidence exclusion reflects a delicate balance: courts want the truth to emerge, but not at the cost of justice or fundamental rights. Through case law, we see courts carefully scrutinize:
How evidence is collected
The methods used to obtain it
Its reliability and fairness
This ensures that legal proceedings maintain integrity and credibility.
RELATED Blog
comments