Exclusion Of Illegal Evidence In Canada

Canada legal system is after UK system and affected by US system deeply,and its principle of exclusion of evidence is made by compromise of these twosystems. Previous to1982, illegally obtained evidence generally had to beadmitted if it met the test of relevancy in Canada. The only exceptions relatedto involuntary statements made to persons in authority, illegal wire-taps, and anarrow judicial discretion to exclude evidence of trifling probative valuecompared to its prejudicial effect on the accused. After1982, the principle ofexclusion of evidence is settled, and has been applied many times by judge,however, with a controversy at all times. As the principle of exclusion ofevidence just be settled in China, it can learn from Canada with richexperience. The dissertation analysis the development of the principle ofevidence’s exclusion and the famous cases in Canada, and put forward thetentative plan for China.In Part I, the dissertation introduce the background of the legal system aboutevidence’s exclusion in Canada, and the way which the principle of exclusionof evidence be settled.In Part II, the dissertation analysis the settlement of the principle. As theprinciple of exclusion of evidence is constitutional in Canada, it is a remedy forthe violation of constitutional right, and based on the “condonation” rationale,the “corrective justice” rationale, and the “deterrence” rationale.In Part III, the dissertation analysis the procedure issues while the judgeapplies the exclusion rule, and then analysis and summarize the typical cases in detail, which are very significant. The core of exclusionary rule is fairness oftrial, and the judge created the conscriptive evidence and non-conscriptiveevidence for exclusionary rule. The Court turns to consider the social interestsin deciding when to exclude evidence in the last few years.In Part IV, the dissertation concentrates on the tentative plan of exclusionaryrule in China. As the rule is just settled, the social acknowledge should beimproved, and also about the issues in the procedure, scope, standard ofexclusionary rule.