- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Sang (1980) HL
Case Summary: This case concerns the admissibility of evidence obtained through police entrapment. The defendant, Sang, argued that the prosecution's evidence should be inadmissible because it stemmed from police inducement (agents provocateurs). The trial judge refused to consider this argument, ruling he lacked the discretion to exclude evidence solely on the grounds of entrapment. Sang pleaded guilty, appealed, and ultimately lost his appeal in the House of Lords.
Key Issue: Does a court have the discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence obtained through police entrapment?
House of Lords Decision: No. The House of Lords held that the trial judge acted correctly. The court's focus is on the use of evidence at trial, not how it was obtained. Creating a rule to exclude evidence based on entrapment would effectively introduce a "defence of entrapment" into English law, which didn't exist at the time.
Lord Diplock's Key Reasoning:
Subsequent Developments:
Case Summary: This case concerns the admissibility of evidence obtained through police entrapment. The defendant, Sang, argued that the prosecution's evidence should be inadmissible because it stemmed from police inducement (agents provocateurs). The trial judge refused to consider this argument, ruling he lacked the discretion to exclude evidence solely on the grounds of entrapment. Sang pleaded guilty, appealed, and ultimately lost his appeal in the House of Lords.
Key Issue: Does a court have the discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence obtained through police entrapment?
House of Lords Decision: No. The House of Lords held that the trial judge acted correctly. The court's focus is on the use of evidence at trial, not how it was obtained. Creating a rule to exclude evidence based on entrapment would effectively introduce a "defence of entrapment" into English law, which didn't exist at the time.
Lord Diplock's Key Reasoning:
- Judge's Role: A judge's role is to ensure a fair trial according to law, not to discipline the police or prosecution for how they gather evidence.
- Remedies for Improper Evidence Gathering: If evidence is obtained illegally, civil remedies exist. Breaches of police conduct rules are dealt with by disciplinary authorities, not by excluding evidence at trial.
Subsequent Developments:
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: This Act introduced a wider discretion for courts to exclude improperly obtained evidence, significantly altering the landscape from the position established in R v Sang. This Act provides a statutory basis for excluding evidence which contrasts with the common law position in R v Sang. While R v Sang remains important precedent in understanding the previous limitations, its application has been substantially impacted by this subsequent legislation.
- What was the central argument raised by the defendant in R v Sang?
- What was the House of Lords' decision, and what was its rationale?
- What is Lord Diplock's view on the judge's role regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through questionable means?
- How did the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 change the landscape created by R v Sang?
- What are the implications of R v Sang for police conduct and the admissibility of evidence in English law? How does this compare to the situation after the 1984 Act?
0 Comments