R v Khan (Sultan)
Evidence obtained by a covert listening device installed by the police without statutory authority was admissible, because there is no rule excluding improperly obtained evidence and its admission was not unfair.
Facts
The police installed a covert listening device on the outside of a house in Sheffield, without the knowledge of the owner, and recorded a conversation in which Mr Khan admitted being involved in the importation of heroin. At the time, there was no statutory scheme regulating the use of such devices by the police. He was convicted, and argued that the evidence should have been excluded because it had been obtained by a trespass and in breach of his right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the evidence was admissible. Lord Nolan said that, under English law, relevant evidence is admissible even if it has been obtained illegally, subject to the judge's discretion to exclude it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. A breach of article 8 was relevant to the exercise of the discretion, but did not require exclusion, and the judge had been entitled to admit the evidence. The European Court of Human Rights later held in Khan v United Kingdom that there had been a breach of article 8, because the surveillance was not in accordance with the law, but no breach of article 6.
Related cases on silence, confessions and improperly obtained evidence
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- Condron v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Fulling [1987] QB 426
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
