The prosecution case was said to have been based on evidence acquired during an unlawful search of the defendant’s premises.
Held: An irregularity in the method by which evidence has been obtained does not necessarily make that evidence inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.
Lord Justice General Cooper explained the basis for the approach: ‘From the standpoint of principle it seems to me that the law must strive to reconcile two highly important interests which are liable to come into conflict – (a) the interest of the citizen to be protected from illegal or irregular invasions of his liberties by the authorities, and (b) the interest of the State to secure that evidence bearing upon the commission of crime and necessary to enable justice to be done shall not be withheld from Courts of law on any merely formal or technical ground. Neither of these objects can be insisted upon to the uttermost.’
Lord Justice General Cooper
 ScotHC HCJAC – 2, 1950 JC 19, 1950 SLT 37
Approved – HM Advocate v McGuigan HCJ 1936
An irregularity in the obtaining of evidence does not necessarily make that evidence inadmissible. . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution.
Held: The admission of the . .
Cited – Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.279178