4 ms·
This argument largely does not exist outside English law. Though I very much doubt it would apply, if it did.
by blattimwind 8y ago
This argument largely does not exist outside English law. Though I very much doubt it would apply, if it did.
- stordoff 8y agoIIRC, it's barely a concept in English law, primarily US law. It has however seen some use in the ECHR , notably against Germany (citing various US court cases): > the applicant sought a declaration that [...] all items of evidence[...], which had become known to the investigation authorities because of the confession extracted – the so-called “fruit of the poisonous tree” – was prohibited [...] The Chamber considered that there was a strong presumption that the use of items of evidence obtained as the fruit of a confession extracted by means contrary to Article 3 rendered a trial as a whole unfair in the same way as the use of the extracted confession itself. Gäfgen v. Germany, at 25 and 147 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22dmdocnumber%22:[%22868977%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-99015%22] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22dmdocnumber%22:[%22868977...} It almost certainly wouldn't apply here though (as there is no illegal act).
- blattimwind 8y agoGäfgen is a rather unique case and arguably not comparable to e.g. an illegal search.