Report No. 94
10.10. Arguments against conclusion.-
Against the introduction of an exclusionary rule, it is argued that where evidence is logically relevant to the facts in issue, it should be admitted despite the fact that it was illegally obtained because:
(i) the predominant concern of the tribunal of fact is the search for truth, and the fact of the illegal acquisition of evidence does not effect the logical relevance of that evidence and the court should not undertake a collateral inquiry;
(ii) other sanctions and remedies exist against the perpetrator of illegal acts that are better suited to deter wrongdoers than an evidentiary rule of exclusion; and,
(iii) it would be a grave injustice to a party to be denied the use of illegally obtained evidence where he was not involved in the illegality.