Evidence is considered to be that obtained unjustly due to breach of a contract, violation of professional responsibilities (i.e. those involved in investigating cases), for a crime or an illicit act. If the evidence is obtained by deception, trickery, or inducements such as threats or bribes, this is also classified as unfairly obtained. Excluding evidence in some cases can lead to injustice and no offense on the part of the perpetrator. Evidence is classified as unfairly obtained and may be excluded when; there is a serious violation of the rights of third parties and/or the accused, how serious the crime attributed to the accused is, whether the police acted with malice or with an improper motive, whether the act occurred in a circumstance that it was an urgent or necessary emergency and the availability of a sanction for the person responsible for the misconduct. Section 78 PACE does not just cover wrongly obtained evidence, it covers all evidence that the prosecution will rely on. It is primarily used to exclude evidence of a successful confession that PACE and Code C were violated to obtain it. Case law understands that it is sometimes necessary to exclude evidence that has little relevance and may cause a decision to be made on an emotional level. basic or simply be a waste of time. In jurisprudence, if evidence is obtained unfairly, it may be excluded from the case if its probative value is low or if it is seen as prejudicial in the eyes of the judge. In jurisprudence it is the judge of a criminal trial who decides whether to admit or exclude evidence that could have a prejudicial influence on the jury, however the judge cannot refuse to admit relevant evidence obtained unfairly, it is up to the court not... middle of paper ...it was argued that the tape had been recorded in violation of the right to privacy and should have been excluded from the trial. However the House of Lords decided that the evidence obtained had rightly been admitted under section 78 PACE and the common laws and therefore did not affect the fairness of the proceedings. In R v Sanghera (2001) an illegal search was carried out at the defendant's address without consent. He did not discuss the reliability of the evidence but would have liked to be present to be able to explain the discovery of the money on his property. He subsequently argued that the evidence found should be excluded from the case under section 78 PACE, the judge however rejected this claim as the police had acted in good faith and the evidence had not constituted an unfair trial, the defendant was subsequently convicted and the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.