Admitting irregularly or illegally obtained evidence from abroad into criminal proceedings - A common law approach

Criminal Law Review

Volumn 1997, Issue 10, 1997, Pages 720-729

  Mackarel, Mark ^a   Gane, Christopher ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031487121     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. For a description of the characteristics and dynamics of trans-national crime, see J. M. Martin and A. T. Romano, Multinational Crime: Terrorism, Espionage, Drug & Arms Trafficking (1992). An interesting study of the response to the United States response to the problem can be found in E. A. Nadelmann, Cops Across Borders - The Internationalisation of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement (1993).
2. For a description of the characteristics and dynamics of trans-national crime, see J. M. Martin and A. T. Romano, Multinational Crime: Terrorism, Espionage, Drug & Arms Trafficking (1992). An interesting study of the response to the United States response to the problem can be found in E. A. Nadelmann, Cops Across Borders - The Internationalisation of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement (1993).
3. This phrase is adopted in setting out the operational role of the new European policing agency, Europol. Convention Based on Article K3 of the Treaty on European Union on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Europol), Art. 2(1).
4. European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1959 E.T.S. 30.
5. See generally W. C. Gilmore (ed.), Mutual Assistance in Criminal and Business Regulatory Matters (1995).
6. See for example United States v. Marzano (1975), Ct of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 537 F.2d 257, where the Court of Appeals chose not to examine in any detail the legality of the irregular procedures employed by the police officer of the Cayman Islands.
7. Konscol [1993] Crim.L.R. 950.
8. s.78(1) of PACE states in full that "In any 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."
9. R. v. Governor of Belmarsh Prison and another, ex p. Martin [1995] 2 All E.R. 548.
10. Brulay v. United States (1967), Ct of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 383 F.2d 345.
11. See Stonehill v. United States (1968), Ct of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 405 F.2d 738; United States v. Marzano, n.5 above; United States v. Controni (1975), Ct of Appeals, Second Circuit. 527 F.2d; United States v. Busic (1978), Ct of Appeals, Third Circuit. 587 F.2d 577.
12. No express guidance has been set down as to what constitutes malpractice severe enough to shock the conscience of the court, however, in United States v. Toscanino (1974), 500 F.2d 267, the Court was "shocked" by the torture of the respondent by United States officials, but was not shocked by his forcible abduction.
13. United States v. Marzano, n.5 above.
14. ibid. p.269.
15. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), n.30 below.
16. Terry (1994), British Columbia Court of Appeal. 91 C.C.C. 3d 209.
17. ibid.
18. Brulay v. United States, n.9 above.
19. Harrer (1995), Supreme Court of Canada. 101 C.C.C. 3d 193.
20. Following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 86 S. Ct 1602, a suspect must be advised of their Constitutional rights on being taken into custody.
21. Harrer, n.18 above.
22. R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p. Chinoy [1992] 1 All E.R. 317.
23. ibid, p.326.
24. ibid, p.330.
25. ibid.
26. s.78(1) of PACE specifically applies the judges discretion not to admit evidence to "any proceedings". Thus, the fact that Chinoy was an extradition hearing and not a criminal proceeding is immaterial.
27. R. v. Governor of Pemonville Prison, ex p. Chinoy, n.21 above, p.30.
28. Sang [1980] A.C. 402.
29. R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p. Chinoy, n.21 above, pp.329-330.
30. For other examples of "process laundering" see C. Gane and M. Mackarel, "The Admissibility of Evidence obtained from abroad into Criminal Proceedings - The Interpretation of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and Use of Evidence Irregularly Obtained" (1996) 4 Eur.J.Crime Cr.L.Cr.J. 98.
31. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) 110 S. Ct 1056.
32. ibid. pp. 1060-1061.
33. ibid. pp. 1065-1066.
34. ibid. pp. 1070-1071.
35. ibid. p. 1075.
36. See United Staus v. Marzano, n.5 above; United States v. Cotroni, n.10 above; Stonehill v. United Stales, n. 10 above.
37. See n.11.
38. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, n.30 above, pp. 1065-1066.
39. R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p. Bennett [1994] 1 A.C. 42.
40. ibid. p.62.
41. ibid. p.67.
42. ibid. p.74.
43. See further A. L.-T. Choo, "Halting Criminal Prosecutions: The Abuse of Process Doctrine Revisited" [1995] Crim.L.R. 864.
44. United States v. Toscanino, n.11 above.
45. 5 v. Ebrahim (1991). Supreme Court (Appellate Decision) (2) SA 553. 31 I.L.M. 888 (1992).
46. Hartley (1978) 2 N.Z.L.R. 199.
47. See further the discussion in C. Gane and S. Nash, "Illegal Extradition: The Irregular return of Fugitive Offenders" (1996) 1 S.L.P.Q. 277.
48. Latif, R. v. Shahzad [1996] 1 All E.R. 353.
49. United Staus v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) 112 S. Ct 2188.
50. Liangsiriprasert v. United States Government [1990] 3 W.L.R. 606.
51. Ridgemay [1995] A.L.R. 41. The Australian High Court did, however, use its established discretion to exclude evidence obtained by unlawful conduct by the police with the consequence that the case against the accused collapsed.
52. Latif; R. v. Shahzad, n.47 above, pp.360-361.
53. See for example United Nations Model Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters 1990, Article 11; European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance 1959, Article 5(1)(c).
54. Khan (Sultan) [1996] 3 All E.R. 289.
55. ibid, pp.301-302. Lord Nolan considered that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not require the court to exclude domestically obtained evidence in the circumstances of this case.
56. Sounders v. United Kingdom ECHR (1997) 23 E.H.R.R. 313 at 340.
57. Soering v. United Kingdom ECHR Ser.A, No. 161, judgment of July 7, 1989.
58. However, it remains unclear which human rights principles are applicable and to which human rights principles they apply. See further C. Van den Wyngaert, "Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora's Box?" (1990) 39 I.C.L.Q. 757.
59. See for example Home Affairs Committee (1995), Organised Crime, 3rd Report, Session 1994/95, H.C. 18, p.ix.
60. See the examples outlined in Nadelman, n.1 above.
61. See also R. Rayfuse, "International Abduction and the United States Supreme Court: The Law of the Jungle Reigns" (1993) 42 I.C.L.Q. 882.