The use of unlawfully obtained evidence within the criminal procedure
Student thesis: Master Thesis and HD Thesis
- Martyna Olga Zielinska
4. term, Business Administration and Commercial Law, Master (Master Programme)
The subject of the following thesis is ”Use of unlawfully obtained evidence in the criminal procedu-re”.
The purpose of the thesis has been to initially examine, when an evidence is unlawfully obtained by the police, by describing of the danish rules concerning provision of evidence during the police inve-stigation in relation to searches and interrogations in order to determine when it has been unlawfully obtained.
Subsequently the focus has been to analyze the admissibility of unlawfully obtained in the danish court system by including cases where the evidence has been unlawfully obtained through searches and interrogations.
The thesis also includes cases from the European Court of Human Rights, in order to determine if the position of the Danish courts in regards to the admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence is compa-tible with the demands set out by The European Court of Human Rights for a fair trial according to the Convention on Human Rights art. 6, 1.
It concludes, that when evidence is unlawfully obtained through searches by a breach of formal rules or rules regulating the course of action in this particular investigative step, the Danish courts as a ge-nerel rule find the evidence admissible if it is has not become unreliable as a consequence of the ille-gal step and the police did not intentionally break the rules.
Furthermore, the fact that the evidence is the sole evidence in the case is an argument for admissibilty.
On the contrary evidence obtained through illegal interrogations are as a general rule exluded as evi-dence during trials. In these cases the Danish courts emphasizes the prohibition of self-incrimination.
As to The European Court of Human Rights it concludes, that evidence obtained by means of torture or degrading treatment according to art. 3 will always in a trial being ruled as unfair. Furthermore, a violationof art. 8 will not always make a trial unfair. When the prohibiton of self-incrimination is vio-lated it will make the trial unfair, as it is a siqnificant legal guarantee for the defendant.
The position of the Danish courts poisiton on the subject of admissibility apperas to be in accordance with the demands of a fair trial.
The purpose of the thesis has been to initially examine, when an evidence is unlawfully obtained by the police, by describing of the danish rules concerning provision of evidence during the police inve-stigation in relation to searches and interrogations in order to determine when it has been unlawfully obtained.
Subsequently the focus has been to analyze the admissibility of unlawfully obtained in the danish court system by including cases where the evidence has been unlawfully obtained through searches and interrogations.
The thesis also includes cases from the European Court of Human Rights, in order to determine if the position of the Danish courts in regards to the admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence is compa-tible with the demands set out by The European Court of Human Rights for a fair trial according to the Convention on Human Rights art. 6, 1.
It concludes, that when evidence is unlawfully obtained through searches by a breach of formal rules or rules regulating the course of action in this particular investigative step, the Danish courts as a ge-nerel rule find the evidence admissible if it is has not become unreliable as a consequence of the ille-gal step and the police did not intentionally break the rules.
Furthermore, the fact that the evidence is the sole evidence in the case is an argument for admissibilty.
On the contrary evidence obtained through illegal interrogations are as a general rule exluded as evi-dence during trials. In these cases the Danish courts emphasizes the prohibition of self-incrimination.
As to The European Court of Human Rights it concludes, that evidence obtained by means of torture or degrading treatment according to art. 3 will always in a trial being ruled as unfair. Furthermore, a violationof art. 8 will not always make a trial unfair. When the prohibiton of self-incrimination is vio-lated it will make the trial unfair, as it is a siqnificant legal guarantee for the defendant.
The position of the Danish courts poisiton on the subject of admissibility apperas to be in accordance with the demands of a fair trial.
| Language | Danish |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 10 Sept 2021 |
| Number of pages | 65 |