Improperly obtained evidence in the Commonwealth: lessons for England and Wales?

Abstract

English law's traditional approach to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence is currently being rethought in response to a range of domestic and international pressures. With the position in England and Wales following the House of Lords' decision in A and Others (2005) firmly in mind, this article undertakes a selective review of comparative approaches to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Having analysed relevant legislation and case law in each jurisdiction, general principles are derived to guide future developments in English law, in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.