The exclusionary rule of illegally-obtained evidence - an Anglo-Saxon perspective

Abstract

Cicero's famous words Omnes Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus have stood the test of time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau however writes that Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains, implying that man is constrained both by legal and social forces. This paradox is reflected in the balance between criminal substantive and procedural law on the one hand and the rights of the citizen, including human rights, on the other. The latter can indeed only be enforced and ensured by a derogation therefrom in certain circumstances. The right to liberty, for instance, can only be ensured by restricting the liberty of others, whether in ordinary behaviour or as a punishment for previous conduct. This paradoxical situation is also reflected in rules governing illegally obtained evidence. Should the accused be convicted on the grounds of evidence obtained illegally, against his rights or should his rights be given precedence, excluding the evidence, and in so doing detract from the protection of the rights of others in general? The examples drawn from various jurisdictions vary greatly owing to historical, social and political reasons.