‘Kompromat, often used in Russia to keep politicians and businesspeople in line, is now frequently being submitted as evidence in the courts of England and Wales,’ writes Natalie Todd, partner at Cooke Young & Keidan, in this week’s NLJ.
Evidence obtained unlawfully, whether through surveillance, phone tapping or hacked emails, is not necessarily inadmissible. Judges may accept hacked emails, tapped phones and surveillance footage if the interests of justice so demand. But what is acceptable and what is not?
Todd surveys the parameters of acceptability, in a fascinating article available here.
RELATED ARTICLES
