What types of police evidence are excluded under UK law and how are exclusionary rules applied?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The UK does not operate a single, rigid “exclusionary rule” that automatically bars all unlawfully obtained police evidence; instead courts use a mix of statutory and common-law discretions to exclude specific categories—notably confessions and evidence whose admission would render a trial unfair under PACE s.78—while other evidence is assessed for relevance and fairness on a case-by-case basis [1] [2] [3]. This pragmatic, discretionary approach balances protecting defendants’ rights with public interest in prosecuting crime, but critics argue it risks under‑deterring police misconduct compared with systems that apply automatic suppression [3] [4].
1. What the law actually excludes: statutory hotspots and bright‑line limits
Certain categories of police-obtained material are subject to specific statutory prohibitions or near‑automatic exclusion: confessions obtained by oppression or in breach of PACE safeguards are governed by PACE provisions (including s.76) and can be excluded, and some intercept evidence is expressly prohibited by statute such as RIPA, meaning it cannot be used in evidence [2] [5] [6].
2. The broad discretionary gatekeeper: PACE s.78 and the unfair trial test
For much else the key tool is section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gives the trial judge a discretionary power to exclude evidence if its admission would have “such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”; the inquiry requires balancing probative value against prejudicial effect and includes how the evidence was obtained among other circumstances [1] [2].
3. Common law, civil rules and human‑rights overlay
Beyond PACE, common-law abuse‑of‑process doctrines permit exclusion where prosecution conduct or delay would make a fair trial impossible, and civil procedural rules (e.g. CPR 32.1) show a parallel discretionary approach to exclusion in non‑criminal contexts; human‑rights jurisprudence (Article 6 and related ECHR authorities) influences domestic judges to ensure an available discretion to challenge use of unlawfully obtained material even when exclusion is not automatic [7] [8] [9].
4. How judges apply the discretion in practice: fact‑sensitive and incremental
Case law shows the exercise is intensely fact-sensitive: courts consider the seriousness of police breaches (e.g. improper bugging or failures in interview procedure), whether the defence was put on notice, and whether admitting the material would undermine trial legitimacy; the more “significant and substantial” the breach, the more likely exclusion is [6] [2]. Judges have resisted a rule that would exclude all unlawfully obtained evidence because that could frustrate prosecutions where exclusion would disserve victims or the public interest [2] [3].
5. Tensions, critiques and comparative context
Commentators and comparative studies stress a tension: England’s discretionary, fairness‑focused model (designed to protect the fairness of proceedings) contrasts with jurisdictions—most notably the United States—where exclusion aims principally to deter police misconduct, and critics argue the UK approach may insufficiently discourage illegal police tactics and produce inconsistent outcomes [4] [3] [10].
6. Practical consequences and the hidden agendas in debates
Debate over reform often reveals competing agendas: civil‑liberties advocates press for clearer, stronger exclusion to safeguard rights and deter state intrusion, while prosecutors and some victims’ groups emphasise effective crime‑fighting and warn that automatic exclusion could leave serious offences unprosecuted; legal reform proposals must therefore navigate not only law but public perceptions and institutional interests [4] [10].
7. Bottom line for admissibility and legal strategy
The bottom line is that admissibility in the UK turns on category (confession/intercept often specially regulated), statutory and common‑law discretions (PACE s.78 and abuse‑of‑process), and judicial balancing of probative value against prejudice and fairness—an approach that privileges judicial discretion and context over categorical suppression, but one that remains contested and under scholarly scrutiny [1] [2] [3].