5. What happens if the law enforcement officers illegally or improperly obtained evidence?

5. What happens if the law enforcement officers illegally or improperly obtained evidence?

The general position is that all evidence, except for confession related evidence, is admissible if it is relevant to the matter at trial, regardless of whether the evidence was illegally and improperly obtained. 

The test for admissibility is whether the evidence is relevant to the matters in issue, and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. This principle applies to both civil and criminal cases.

Nonetheless, the general principle is subject to limitation. In all such cases the judge ought to consider whether the evidence which it is proposed to adduce is sufficiently substantial, having regard to the purpose to which it is professedly directed, to make it desirable in the interest of justice that it should be admitted. If, so far as that purpose is concerned, it can in the circumstances of the case have only trifling weight, the judge will be right to exclude it. To say this is not to confuse weight with admissibility. The distinction is plain, but cases must occur in which it would be unjust to admit evidence of a character gravely prejudicial to the accused even though there may be some tenuous ground for holding it technically admissible. The decision must then be left to the discretion and the sense of fairness of the judge. 

In brief, the court begins with the assumption that any evidence relevant to the trial’s subject is admissible, regardless of how obtained. However, the court has the right to exclude evidence in order to ensure a fair trial. This discretion is applied by taking into account elements such as unfairness, adverse impact, and public confidence in the judicial process.