Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 94

6.4. Constitutional and legal position.-

So far as could be ascertained, the position in Canada is still substantially what it was stated or held to be in the above paragraphs. In other words, (a) as a matter of ordinary law, (i.e. apart from constitutional issues), the discretion of Canadian courts to exclude evidence obtained illegally is very limited;1 (b) even in matters falling within the sphere of constitutional law, that is to say, where a specific provision of the Canadian Bill of Rights has been violated, there does not appear to be any more strict or different approval in this regard.2

Some writers on Canadian law even think that the majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Queen v. Wray, Para. 6.3, supra, has substantially closed the doors in Canada on judicial discretion to exclude evidence where the discretion is based on the method of obtaining the evidence.3

1. Para. 6.2, supra.

2. Para. 6.3, supra.

3. K. Shroff and S. Clarke Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, (1981) p. 31, cited by Barry F. Shanks, Comment, (February 1983) 57 Tulane Law Rev. 641, 664.

Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly - Proposed Section 166a of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys