Search warrants - question

[des8]

Re: Search warrants - question

Although you are not referring to a police search, I suspect the same situation applies to any public/ governmental body capable of obtaining a search warrant.

Sorry, managed to split my post.....didn't know i could!

[bluebottle]

Re: Search warrants - question

Having witnessed a former CID colleague get exposed in front of a Crown Court for, firstly, obtaining a Search Warrant on perjured evidence and, secondly, fabricating evidence, you will understand why I gave the response I did. In that particular case, the trial judge was furious when it became evident the case was based on a lie. Not surprisingly, my former colleague was kicked out of the police force, losing his pension in the process.

[bluebottle]

Re: Search warrants - question

Perhaps both things are true.

I would submit that evidence obtained by means of a bent warrant would probably be admitted, but that when the obtaining of the warrant is looked at in court, the veracity of the witness will then be called into question.

Unfortunately, when it is found that a warrant has been obtained by use of an Information containing perjured evidence, it throws the veracity of the entire case into doubt. A court has to guard against miscarriage of justice, in whatever form a miscarriage takes. In a criminal trial, this would introduce an element of doubt, resulting in the case having to be dismissed.

[des8]

Re: Search warrants - question

I always understood that if in a trial improperly obtained evidence was the only evidence against a defendant it would become so difficult to prosecute that the case would be dismissed. However if it is only one part of the evidence then the trial would be continued regardless, with the tainted evidence either excluded or the jury being advised about its doubtful value

[bluebottle]

Re: Search warrants - question

I always understood that if in a trial improperly obtained evidence was the only evidence against a defendant it would become so difficult to prosecute that the case would be dismissed. However if it is only one part of the evidence then the trial would be continued regardless, with the tainted evidence either excluded or the jury being advised about its doubtful value

Theoretically, yes. In practice, where an Information containing perjured evidence had been used to obtain a warrant, it would raise questions as to the veracity and reliability of other evidence. It may sound as if I am being pedantic, but having dealt with cases before and after PACE came into force, CPS tend, more often than not, to err on the side of caution. I have seen cases stopped, in mid trial, at both Magistrates and Crown Court levels, the phrases "The prosecution offers no evidence" or "The prosecution offers no further evidence" being their usual favourites. In layman's terms, "The evidence is dodgy, we know it's dodgy, but we're not admitting to it publicly. So please stop the trial before we get stuffed, trussed and roasted by the defence and the media"

[charitynjw]

Re: Search warrants - question

Sorry, managed to split my post.....didn't know i could!:tinysmile_hmm_t2:

Ouchy!!

[des8]

Re: Search warrants - question

[QUOTE=bluebottle;387759] It may sound as if I am being pedantic,

Now that's what I'm normally accused of, , but my response is that I'm being accurate