Case Study: Southern Equities Corporation Ltd.

Improved Essays
PRETLOVE: IMPROPERLY OBTAINED DOCUMENTS

In Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors v Bond & Ors , the Court was asked to determine whether the tendering of transcript from a previous hearing that went to the credit of the defendants was an abuse of the court’s process and should not be allowed. Lander J, the presiding Judge, undertook a lengthy analysis of the legislative provisions that provide for the admission of documents. Lander J ultimately found that the court has a discretion to exclude documents that have been obtained through improper or illegal means, albeit it is a high test concerning the abuse of court process that must be satisfied to warrant the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence.

Lander J considered
…show more content…
Lander J found there to be four separate circumstances in which a court may be called upon to exercise a discretion to refuse to admit otherwise admissible evidence in criminal proceedings, including the Christie discretion, which is where the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the prejudice to the accused, and the Bunning v Cross discretion where public policy dictates that the evidence should be excluded. The Bunning v Cross discretion is relevant here because the principle stands for the exclusion of evidence in cases where the evidence has been obtained by improper or unlawful means. The third discretion, from R v Swaffield, which concerns confessional evidence, and finally the fourth discretion regarding non-confessional evidence that would be unfair to the accused so as to deny the accused a fair trial, per Driscoll v The …show more content…
His Honour cited Deane J in Pollard v The Queen , stating that the Court should not be “demeaned by the uncontrolled use of the fruits of illegality in the judicial process.” Lander J continued that the discretion is rooted in the need to prevent the abuse of process, and that the Court is alive to the issue, as well as equipped to refuse a party that abuses its processes and not profit by it. His Honour stated that “[i]t is essential for the maintenance of the administration of justice that the Court’s processes are not abused and, if they are, the abusing party does not profit by the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Petitioner also challenged the logic of the government’s argument that the jury instruction constituted plain error. For Petitioner, if the error was so egregious, the government should have objected at trial. Indeed, in other contexts, appellate courts applied the plain error doctrine to legal questions that were contested at the underlying trial, not in situations where there was no objection, and therefore no dispute, between the parties. In support of this argument, Petitioner analogized to the Court’s precedent in the Double Jeopardy context. Petitioner noted that the “the plainness and even egregiousness of an error in adding an extra-statutory element is of no moment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause where an acquittal was…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    R V N. A Case Analysis

    • 921 Words
    • 4 Pages

    ANAYLSIS OF THE PRINCIPLE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CASE OF R v N. A Introduction In deciding the outcome of a case the courts must have regard to the legal principles, public policies and the correlation with the legal rule. A distinction between legal principle, public policy and rule will be considered and applied in the matter in which Carmody CJ justifies his decision in R v N. 1 Facts of the Case In the Supreme Court, a pre-trial application under s 590AA was sought to exclude evidence obtained based on public policy. The grounds for this application were the result of an improper search conducted without the required reasonable suspicion on the part of K (the searching officer). Mr Callaghan, council for N, argued the forensic…

    • 921 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    (1) Was the common law confessions rule requiring the Crown to prove the voluntariness of an accused’s statement before it can be admissible in court, applicable in a Voir dire hearing (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (2) Were there exigent circumstances in this case to make obtaining a warrant impracticable by the police before its search and seizure of the appellant’s residence (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (3) Was the failure by the police to file a report after the warrantless seizure serious enough to constitute an infringement of the appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search or seizure (R. v. Paterson,…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It begins by stating that the Supreme Court intends on limiting the usage of the exclusionary rule, making it only applicable to cases that grossly violate a defendant’s fourth amendment rights. By citing prolific court cases as references, this article backs up this position by showing what has and has not worked in previous cases. In many cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the exclusionary rule is not mandatorily applicable, so long as the police acted as reasonable, well-trained officers or only committed isolated negligence…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Parol Evidence Rule

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Wiencek further argues that the trial court erred by considering “parol evidence to vary the effective date of the [B108 agreement] and to controvert the integration clause.” CHH, for its part, avers that the admission of parol evidence was proper because it was offered to determine whether the contract was effective. We hold that the circuit court did not violate the parole evidence rule because extrinsic evidence was not offered to add or modify any terms to the B108 agreement. Generally, parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an integrated contract. Foreman v. Melrod, 257 Md. 435, 441 (1970) (“‘All prior and contemporaneous negotiations are merged in the written instrument, which is treated as the exclusive…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One of the reasons for why the courts enforce secret trusts can be explained by the fraud theory. Fraud theory is based on the maxim that “equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud”. [8] Equity will not permit the secret trustee to keep the property fraudulently to themselves relying on failing to comply with Wills Act’s requirements such as the terms not in signed writing, but instead will ensure them to hold the property on trust. [8] In this context, “fraud” should be understood as failing to give effect to the final intention of the testator by the secret trustee who has promised to carry out the trust obligation but then frustrate testator’s wishes and sacrifice the interest of the secret beneficiaries. In this…

    • 851 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    • If the Expert Witness changes his mind post submission of his report then he should take note to mention this to the legal team. This might be due to unavailability of proper resources or due to the findings based on the opposition as well. • Expert witness must make available to the opposition party all his findings and reports while submitting his copy to the court. In Criminal Proceedings rules have been affirmed in R v. Harris. It reiterates on there key factors of an Expert Witness which is Retain, Record and Reveal.…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    R V Dix Case Study

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Moreover, had the Parliament wished to reject the common law’s regulations in regard to this matter, I believe it would have specifically stated such in clear wordings. Since no such dismissal is in existence, the court is still bound by the rules and regulations of the common…

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Oliver Vs Dunn 1979

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Issue: Was the evidence obtained for a search warrant obtained through an illegal search? If the search is found to be illegal, should all the evidence gathered be suppressed? Cases: The Fourth Amendment details legal searches and seizures and the right to ban illegally obtained evidence in court. There are three questions that are addressed when dealing with Fourth Amendment searches. Was the law enforcement act a search, if it was a search was it reasonable, and if it was found unreasonable, is the evidence banned from court?…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He stated: “[a] mere respect for constituted authority must not be confused with fidelity to law”. This is meant in a way that demonstrates the fierce divide between recognizing that a law exists and is valid versus the instinct some individuals have to be abiding by morally acceptable laws. For example, if one were to take the laws at face value during times of severe injustice to one party that is legally acceptable a citizen would just have to accept it as it is. However, the solution to this critique is to simply note that there is a difference between morality and ethics. Ethically, a judge can rule against a law, or lawyers can appeal a law and have it overturned in the Supreme Court.…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays