The Law of Evidence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

The Law of Evidence - Essay Example In order to proceed further, it is pertinent to define the meaning of trick and understand whether that meaning falls into the conundrum of facts of the case. â€Å"A cunning or skilful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone. Intended or used to deceive or mystify, or to create an illusion.†1 To trick someone into something is to make the other person believe that he is showing him the true face of the situation, but, on the other hand he is infact putting him through a fake image of illusion and therefore cheating him to deceive him according to his whims and fancies. ... helps the accused as the departure from the strict procedure has been adopted by design with a view to securing the admission of evidence obtained by an unfair trick. As per the findings of Lord Cooper, "I can find nothing to suggest that any departure from the strict procedure was deliberately adopted ... in the present instance the irregularity ought to be ‘excused’.†150 The Privy Council, in its opinion delivered on an appeal from Kenya, mentioned, as a ground for excluding relevant evidence that it had been obtained by a "trick." 1:;1 Kingsmill Moore ]., admitting evidence of this kind in an Irish case, said: "I can find no evidence of deliberate treachery, imposition [or]deceit." 152 As a ground for rejecting evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada has pointed out: "Admittedly, the statement by the accused was procured by trickery, duress and improper inducements." Therefore, in the first instance, according to the precedents laid down by the Courts worldwide as well as the law in the PACE Act, it has been clearly stated that any evidence produced by putting the individual under a trick is negligible and liable to be excluded under the law. Thus David may be supported with the help of the same. 2. The Law governing the admissibility of the confession Section 82(1) of the PACE Act defines the law governing the admissibility of confession. The Section is as follows: â€Å"confession†, includes any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise†.4 According to the facts of the case, it is a clear cut proposition that David was oppressed into confessing that he knew about the stolen nature of the car radio. The Court should look at this situation from a holistic