Motion:

THW allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible in court.

Interpretation:
This motions means we should debate on whether we should allow illegally obtained evidence to be
admissable in court or not.
As the government team, we want to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissable in court.
And as the opposition team, we do not want to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissable in
court.

Definition:
Evidence that has been obtained illegally can include:
 Any evidence arising from an unlawful search of a person, their car or their home.
 Conversations between individuals recorded without the knowledge and/or consent of both
where is no valid warrant.
 Video or CCTV recordings of a person on private property, taken without their consent and
without a valid warrant.
 Documents that have been obtained through illicit monitoring of an person’s computer or other
electronic means without a valid warrant.

Evidence in law means data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may
include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. The general aim of evidence is to
provide proof (or otherwise) of the issues to be decided in court.

Background Story:
Wrongdoer improving their act of criminal from time to time and there are a lot of times when the law
enforcements can not get enough evidence obtained legally to be admissible at court. In order to get
evidence legally then the law enforcements must follow rules such as get a warrant, get a permission to
record conversation with witness or the family of the wrongdoer or anyone that involved in the crime
and so on which takes time and procedure meanwhile evidence is time-sensitive. I believe it is time for
us to allow the use of illegally obtained evidence at court to make sure wrongdoers convicted based on
all evidence obtained (ofcourse only those evidence that are relevant to the crime based on fact).
Problem:
There are a lot of wrongdoers got not adequate deterrent effect (that atleast should be equal to impact
that they commited and should make the victim or people who harmed feel better) from the
punishment that they got from final court decision because the evidence that admissible at court only
the legally obtained, meanwhile illegally obtained one actually could have potentials to be considered
and it could help the jury and judge to evaluate the crime from more objects or perspectives. If we don’t
allow this then we might open the possibility for wrongdoers to commit another crime or let the victim
or society disappointed with the decision from the court and it could lead to the lost of trust as well.
Goal:
Our goal is to decrease and prevent another court decisions that aren’t giving deterrent effect (that
atleast should be equal to impact that they commited and should make the victim or people who
harmed feel better) so the number of crimes could be reduced as there are freedom of proof that
acquired by law enforcements, the decision will morelikely equitable and accepted by society to gain
trust.
Stance:
As the government team, this means we agree to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible in
court.
And for the opposition team, it means they disagree to allow illegally obtained evidence to be
admissible in court.
Argument:
Who is affected, What are you doing, Where is gonna happen, How is gonna happen, Why are you going
to do.
We should allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible in court as it would help the judge and jury
to assest the severe level of crime commited by wrongdoers based on many objects and perspective
that are proven to be a fact, in order to make the equitable decision.
The pros of allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible at court are:
1. First, that law enforcement won’t have to spend time getting warrants and do every action along with
procedure when there is only a short time to collect and get the evidence. Oftenly evidence in a form of
object can be damaged easily as many factors take part of it (moisture, heat, movement, animals, etc).
When the evidence is intentionaly put/hiden by wrongdoers at a place or to someone’s house that has
nothing to do with the crime (not knowing, not involved) and the law enforcement know it from witness
or any source that has proof then it is the best decision to get into the place without waiting for warrant
for the sake of people lives. Imagine when the evidence it bomb or anything that is time sensitive then
the law enforcement have to follow procedures or get a warrant before, then it would be to late to save
someone’s life. And also there are so many case when witness won’t speak up for what they’ve seen or
experienced related to the crime commited by the wrongdoers because they are threatened by
someone (it could be the wrongdoers or their accomplice) and they do not trust that the law
enforcement could give protection then the essential testimony won’t be received or can’t be used
because of the illegall status as the witness do not consent to let his/her testimony used at court. There
are crimes that only have one type of evidence which is witness and if that hold back the truth to punish
or arrest the wrongdoers that are harmful for society then it is a shame. By letting law enforcement to
record the testimony without consent, it might help/save others from bad occasions. “Where such a
party will be asking the Court to make inferences from such material, it is only fair that such material
should be seen as a whole.”
2. Morally and as an adjunct to public safety by removing more criminals from the street. It would be in
the best interest of society to allow this. There’s a case when someone with power who commit a crime
carefully, resulting on loss for a lot of people, the only way to get enough evidence to give heavy
punishment is illegal, so what should we do? I admit that following procedure is a must, but when it
comes to society interest then necessary action must be taken.

Ofcourse by obtaining evidence illegally that include:

• Any evidence arising from an unlawful search of a person, their car or their home.
• Conversations between individuals recorded without the knowledge and/or consent of both
where is no valid warrant.
• Video or CCTV recordings of a person on private property, taken without their consent and
without a valid warrant.
• Documents that have been obtained through illicit monitoring of an person’s computer or other
electronic means without a valid warrant.
the law enforcement can not and must not trespassing/checking someone’s house/CCTV/documents
randomly, they must have strong facts to do so even though without warrant or permission as long as
they do it because of urgency that can not wait for another second to prevent the evidence to be
damage/lost/taken away by other partie.
So to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible in court, no doubt that society must agree to
this, there should be formal information publication by government and law enforcement to persuade
society to agree on this. Society trust must be gained so that they will understand this applies to
everyone without exception. One or some constitution must be changed, one of that is about
exclusionary rules. Evidence exclusion rules are regulations or doctrines that oblige judges to set aside
evidence obtained illegally (evidence becomes invalid) in a trial. There are three reasons for rejecting
the exclusionary rule. First, it is an attempt to try an offense without the normal process and complaint
against the wrongdoer. Second, it is a remedy which does not punish the wrongdoer but gratuitously
aids another to whose guilt or innocence the violation of the Constitution is immaterial. Finally, it is a
remedy that interferes with the administration of justice by burdening the courts with an issue wholly
independent of the question before the court.
At the end, we agree to allow illegally obtained evidence to be admissible in court.

The Evidence Act outlines a number of competing considerations that a magistrate or judge must take
into account when deciding whether to allow illegally obtained evidence to be used in court.
These include:
How does a court decide whether illegally obtained evidence is admissible?
 The desirability of admitting the evidence,
 The undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in that way.
 The importance and value of the evidence to the overall proceedings.
 The extent to which the law was broken or the level of impropriety used in obtaining the
evidence.
 Whether the breach of law or impropriety was done deliberately or recklessly.
 The ease or difficulty of obtaining the evidence without resorting to the impropriety or
contravention used.
The court will weigh-up these considerations and make a decision as to whether a particular piece of
evidence will be allowed.