Common Law-admissibility isn’t affected by mode of obtaining evidence,
Human Rights: admission of evidence obtained in breach of HR or constitution isn’t admissible, perTuffour v AG no one can make what constitution says lawful unlawful and vice versa, per Okorie alias Ozuzu v Rep if breach of rule of law or constitution, evidence not objected to doesn’t preclude one from raising it on appeal and even if no miscarriage evidence obtained in breach of constitution is illegal and inadmissible.
A judge has discretion to exclude it if its prejudicial effect outweighs probative value, position same as Ghana unless constitution says otherwise.R v Leatham it matters not how you get it, courts don’t pause to look into means competent evidence was obtained, court’s duty to decide whether offence is committed and not to discipline police for exceeding its powers.by
Use of Agent Provocateurs-per R v Sang (supra) where informerof police incited accused to commit offence of conspiracy to utter bank notes, although incitement could be taken into account in mitigating sentence, be basis for civil action against police or informer, such evidence is nevertheless admissible, per R v Roberts informant placed in cell by police and conversation with accused admitting involvement in crime was admissible evidence;
Invasion of Privacy-per R v Khan Sultan danger to hold that man’s admission of participation in heroin importation be set aside because his privacy is invaded, where HR is violated its effect is determined and relevant evidence may still be admitted;
Unlawful Search of Person or Premises-per Kuruma, son of Kunia v R conviction of possession of ammunition, unlawful weapon, sustained though searched by officers below senior rank, per Jeffery v Black unlawful possession of cannabis upon search of home without consent and without search warrant admissible;
Unlawful Taking of Body Fluids as Specimen-perR v Apiecella charged with rape on three counts, all victims suffered from strain of gonorrhoea, body fluid taken by doctor upon misrepresentation to him by a prison officer that he has no choice, sample showed accused was suffering from same and was admitted as evidence of guilt.
Police trickery-per R v Bailey & Smithpolice convinced accused through pantomime that they had been placed in a cell with no listening device, they made revealing info of participation in crime, same was admissible;
Entrapment-is no defence under CL, whether officer caused the commission of the crime or merely provided opportunity for accused to commit crime, officer must behave must have behaved like ordinary members of public, per AG Reference No3Regina v Loosely an abuse of court process and dismiss evidence of entrapment where state lures citizens to commit offences and seek to prosecute them, however entrapment is justifiable where technique to induce is consistent with ordinary temptations and stratagems likely to be encountered in course of criminal activity and not beyond, Mack v Queen such techniques power is limited as may result in commission of crime by people who wouldn’t otherwise commit.
R v Smurthwaite & Gill undercover posing as contract killer contacting accused and recordings between both admitted in evidence as accused would have engage in such offence anyway with any other person factors to consider 1-whether wouldn’t have committed but for trick 2-nature of entrapment 3-role of officer 4-recorded or strongly corroborated 5-whether officer abused role, DPP v Marshallselling of alcohols without license and plain cloth police officer purchases some, admissible as accused would have behaved in same way if purchased by member of public.
Williams v DPPvan parked with valuables in street to see who had been breaking into cars, admissible even though no suspicion was previously levelled with accused. R v Christou police set up jewellery shop which purchases stolen jewels and record transaction, admissible as nobody was forcing Ds to do what they did, the trick was not applied to them, they rather applied themselves to the trick as they would be doing same thing perhaps in a different shop if police hadn’t set up same.