Should Evidence Be Excluded If Obtained Improperly by the Police - Coursework Example

The boundaries between its strict application and exercise of discretion shall be presented for the purpose of shedding more light on the public. It will include an examination of all relevant decisions of the courts so that the factors affecting the exercise of discretion could be clearly identified. It will also include a study of connecting the policies with the actual practice in courts. Thus, legal as well as practical recommendations shall be made in the end. As a general rule, criminal laws are enacted in order to protect society from unscrupulous elements of the law and vindicate the rights of the victims, which have been violated by the suspects.

These laws lay down the specific acts that, when committed, create a demandable right, both on the state and the individual, to pursue the suspect and indict him for the malfeasance committed. Thus, justice on the part of the victim could be obtained by merely proving the existence of probable cause against the suspect so that the police authorities could immediately act and apprehend the suspect for prosecution and trial. On the other hand, criminal procedure as embodied in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) lays down the policies as well as the.

Thus, justice on the part of the victim could be obtained by merely proving the existence of probable cause against the suspect so that the police authorities could immediately act and apprehend the suspect for prosecution and trial. On the other hand, criminal procedure as embodied in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) lays down the policies as well as the limitations to be observed by the police that will serve as guidance to the magistrates who will handle the case. One of the issues embraced therein is the admissibility of evidence procured by the police thru means not sanctioned by law.

In short, the question is whether or not the court, for purposes of convicting the accused, should accept the evidence illegally obtained by the police authorities. Those who oppose the proposition base their arguments on the legal maxim that such kind of evidence is 'a fruit of the poisonous tree' and therefore must not be used. No amount of evidence, no matter how substantial it would be, could justify its use for the conviction of an accused, which, incidentally, is always presumed to be innocent unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hence, the end does not justify the means. Indeed, if the conviction of an accused will lie on evidence that has been obtained in violation of the latter's rights, absolute justice will still not prevail as in the process, injustice was also meted out to the accused. This should not be the case in the English judicial system. On the other hand, adherents of the proposition stand firm on the logic of the maxim, 'The end justifies the means.'