The Admissibility of Evidence Procured by Illegal Search: Scotland

In a recent issue of this review, the present writer reviewed developments in the law relating to the admissibility of evidence procured by illegal searches and seizures in British Commonwealth jurisdictions.' There it was pointed out that in recent years the question has been most elaborately reviewed in the Scottish Courts. In Lawrie v. Muir a bench of seven judges considered the principles governing this matter. They referred to the balance to be maintained between the interests of the state in bringing the guilty to justice and the interests of individuals in being protected against illegal or irregular invasions of their liberty by the authorities. The conclusion drawn from these considerations was that such evidence was not necessarily inad- missible, but that the court should determine each case on its merits.

Apply- ing these principles to the case in hand, the court in Lawrie v. Muir ruled the evidence inadmissible. So too in McGovern v. H. M. Advocate these principles were applied to exclude evidence. However, in Fairley v. Fish- mongers of London it was held that the irregularities of search and seizure did not justify the exclusion of the evidence.