R v Sang

At common law, a judge has no discretion to exclude relevant evidence merely because it was obtained improperly, except confessions and similar evidence.

Citation
[1980] AC 402
Court
House of Lords
Year
1980
Subject
English Legal System
Topic
Criminal justice, evidence and appeals

Facts

Mr Sang was charged with conspiracy to utter forged banknotes. He claimed that he had been induced to commit the offence by a police informer acting on the instructions of the police, and asked the judge to exclude the prosecution evidence on the ground that it had been obtained by entrapment.

Legal principle

The House of Lords held that entrapment is not a defence in English law, and that a judge has no discretion to exclude relevant evidence merely because it was obtained by improper or unfair means, except for admissions, confessions and evidence obtained from the defendant after the offence. Lord Diplock said that the court is not concerned with how evidence was obtained, but with whether its admission would make the trial unfair. The position was changed by section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gives the court a wider discretion to exclude evidence that would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings, and entrapment was later dealt with in R v Looseley.

Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals

Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.

Back to all law cases

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.

Contact Us

Enquire about our bespoke academic solutions