Exclusion of Evidence- Cases and Legislations
Author
Institution
Introduction
The judiciary is one of the most fundamental institutions in any country. It is charged with the responsibility of defending, as well as upholding the constitution and ensuring that the rule of law has prevailed. It is worth noting, however, that a pervasive aspect of the role of judiciary at each level is safeguarding every person’s human, legal and constitutional rights. In instances where a court attempts to settle a dispute, it is charged with the responsibility of determining the facts pertaining to the case. This is usually through adducing the evidence that the contestants, from which it will determine the laws applicable to the circumstance or controversy (Wolchover, 1986). As an interpreter of the laws of the land, the judiciary is expected to safeguard the fundamental legal, human and constitutional rights through examination of the evidence. The evidence, in this case, may be in the form of physical items found at the scene of crime, the statements of the accused, witness or victims, testimonies from experts or even law enforcement agencies (Wolchover, 1986). However, the admissibility of evidence is never automatic. There are instances where evidence produced in a court of law may be excluded during the determination of the case. This is the situation in the case provided.
The 32-year old man charged with rape was interviewed by a detective. He initially admitted to the crime but later retracted his statement saying that he made the admission as he was under coercion by the arresting officer. In addition, he has stated that he was not subjected to a medical examination and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms at the time resulting from his drug addiction.
The key reason as to why statutes or rules limit the admissibility of evidence is to ensure that the accused individuals is accorded a fair trial that is only based on reliable and factual evidence (King, 2002). It aims at ensuring that the innocent are not convicted and that only guilty individuals are convicted. In the case presented, it is imperative that one determines whether the human, legal and constitutional rights of the defendant were infringed upon, or whether the law enforcement agencies acted in a manner that would render the testimony of the defendant inadmissible in a court of law.
Rule 95 of the Statute of the International Tribunal and the Rules states that evidence would be inadmissible in cases where the methods through which it is obtained would cast significant doubts pertaining to its reliability or in instances where its admission would be seriously damage and be antithetical to the proceedings’ integrity. This statement is complemented by S90 of the Evidence Act of 1995, which gives discretion for the exclusion of prosecution evidence in instances where the circumstances under which such admission was made would be unfair to the accused individual (King, 2002). This is the same case for S135 of the Evidence Act of 1995 which states that the court would have the discretion to exclude evidence in instances where its probative value has been significantly outweighed by the danger that that evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to one of the parties (Allen, 2012). This is not a simple fact of the evidence advancing the prosecutor’s case or even rendering the defense case weak, rather it underlines the fact that such evidence would destroy the case of the defendant in a manner that is deemed unacceptable and prejudicial (King, 2002). This is the case for the 32 year old man. As much as the prosecution may want to bring in the self-made confession as evidence in the court, the technique through which it was obtained is questionable. The defendant has stated that he made the confession under duress from the arresting officer. Given the arresting officer’s history of assaulting individuals, it is highly likely that the same was done to the defendant in this case. The evidence so obtained would, therefore, be inadmissible due to this impropriety. Scholars note that constitutional provisions pertaining to such impropriety extends to actions which, although not unlawful or criminal, are clearly or quite inconsistent with the minimum standards that the society requires or expects from individuals who are entrusted with enforcing the law (Allen, 2012).
On the same note, given the duress that he alleges during arresting interviewing and making the confession it is logical to conclude that the defendant was not given the option of having his counsel present. This is contrary to Rule 42B (Rights of Suspects during Investigation) of the Statute of the International Tribunal and the Rules. It states that the suspect shall not be questions in the absence of a counsel except in instances where the suspect, by his own volition, waives this right (Khan et al, 2010). In instances where the suspect has waived the right, questioning would cease if he expresses his desire to have counsel and resume only after the suspect has been assigned or obtained counsel.
This was the case in The Prosecutor V. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic A/K/A “Pavo”, Hazim Delic, and Esad Landzo A/K/A ‘Zenga” of 1997. In this case, the defense for the accused, Zdravko Mucic outlined that there had been serious violations of the constitutional rights of the accused during the investigation and interrogation. In this case, the defense objected to the admission of a confession that the Austrian police had obtained from the accused stating that the man had been extremely tired (Khan et al, 2010). This part was built on the admission of one of the interviewers named Mr. Moerbauer that he was extremely tired at the end of the four hour interview. Considering that the interview was conducted by five individuals who would move in and out of the room, a luxury that the accused did not have, it goes without saying that he was extremely exhausted (King, 2002). This was considered coercion by the interviewers in which case the court ruled that such evidence had to be excluded from the case. This ruling can be applied to the case at hand where the accused confesses that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms from his drug addiction. Needless to say, he was in no position to make a confession in a fair manner, in which case the admission of such a confession would be prejudicial to his rights as an individual (Khan et al, 2010).
In conclusion, the judiciary makes decisions in cases based on evidence presented in the court. However, the evidence may be inadmissible in varied instances. This is the case for the 32-year old man accused of rape. As much as the prosecution has brought in a confession from the accused admitting to the crime, it is worth noting that the defendant made the confession under duress. He was assaulted by the arresting officer, an individual who has on previous occasions been accused of assault. In essence, the confession cannot be admissible in the case especially considering that the defendant was not subjected to a medical examination before being interrogated. This was a violation of his legal, constitutional and human rights, which raises doubts as to the authenticity of such a confession.
References
Allen, C (2012). Q&A Evidence 2011-2012. London: Taylor & Francis
King, M.T (2002). Security, Scale, Form, and Function: The Search for Truth and the Exclusion of Evidence in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Justice Systems, 12 International Legal Perspective. 185, 218
Khan, K. A. A., Buisman, C., & Gosnell, C. (2010). Principles of evidence in international criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolchover, D. (1986). The exclusion of improperly obtained evidence: With special reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Chichester: Barry Rose.
