Respectfully, I don't think your core claim is true. The UK will usually only exclude evidence if it is not reliable. Illegally or Unlawfully obtained evidenc

Respectfully, I don't think your core claim is true. The UK will usually only exclude evidence if it is not reliable. Illegally or Unlawfully obtained evidence is almost always admissible. This is one of the key differences between the UK and US legal systems. Even getting search warrants ruled unlawful does not make evidence gathered from such a warrant inadmissible. You may be able to get evidence excluded IF you can show it is unreliable. But not being legally obtained is almost never relevant... >A breach of rules in the criminal proceedings against a person under investigation is treated as irrelevant to the question of whether the evidence will be admissible. Automatic exclusion of evidence illegally or improperly obtained has never been adopted by the English courts. (later) >It can matter in English law how evidence is obtained. Although the general rule is that any relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, section 76 of PACE highlights how the way confessions are gained can affect the admissibility of the evidence. Furthermore, although section 78 provides discretionary powers relating to evidence being inadmissible if it would be averse to fairness, the House of Lords have accepted in A that some illegally obtained evidence cannot be used if it breaches Article 3. https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly-obtained-evidence-does-it-matter-how-you-get-it https://www.culs.org.uk/per-incuriam/illegally-or-improperly... Interestingly the law has a specific section saying you cannot use confessions from torture (one of the few explicitly inadmissible sources of evidence). BUT if someone confesses under torture you CAN use any facts they reveal as part of the confession. I think that gives some flavour for the UK's approach to limits on police powers.