R v Khan

Facts

A listening device was fixed to the outside of a house belonging to a third person. Khan went there as a visitor. The device recorded him talking about the importation of heroin. There was no statutory warrant for the device. He said the recording had been obtained by deception and should be excluded.

Issue

Does the lack of a lawful authority for a listening device make the recording inadmissible?

Held

No. The House of Lords held that the recording was admissible. Relevance was the test. The judge's discretion to exclude for unfairness did not require exclusion on these facts.

Principle

Unlawfully obtained real evidence, including a conversation, is admissible, subject to the discretion recognised in Sang and, in England, in section 78 of PACE.

Why it matters

The account stops at that holding. It does not teach the later proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights. In Sierra Leone the same rule follows Kuruma and Sang.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.