Article 226/1: Exclusion of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt n° 50/2563 de la Cour suprême (2020)

   Even where a secretly recorded conversation was obtained unlawfully under Section 226, Section 226/1 paragraph one allows the court to admit it if doing so is more beneficial to the administration of justice than the harm to the criminal justice system.

   The defendant answered a doctor's questions voluntarily, and the exchange was secretly recorded on CD. Although the recording was obtained unlawfully under Section 226, the Supreme Court held it admissible under Section 226/1 paragraph one because admitting it was more beneficial to justice than the harm.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8575/2563 (2020)

   Section 226 does not bar private persons from gathering evidence, so where an injured private party obtains evidence unlawfully, the question of admissibility is governed by the balancing test in Section 226/1.

   The Supreme Court held that Section 226 does not prohibit private individuals from gathering evidence, so it applies where a private injured party obtains evidence through an unlawful act, and whether such evidence may be admitted is then decided under the exception in Section 226/1.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 10985/2558 (2015)

   Where an accounts officer, having a duty to protect the employer's interests, reports and produces a company document showing embezzlement, that document is not evidence obtained unlawfully and is not excluded under Section 226/1.

   The defendant argued a payment voucher was unlawfully obtained and inadmissible under Section 226/1. The Supreme Court held the accounts officer who held and produced the foundation's document had a duty to protect the employer and could report wrongdoing, so the document was not unlawfully obtained.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.