The answer is that the court may exclude the evidence if its admission would be unfair to the suspect. This is correct because Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 grants judges discretionary power to exclude prosecution evidence, including digital evidence, when its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings. In the context of a warrantless computer seizure, the court applies a balancing test, weighing the probative value of the seized data against any breach of PACE safeguards, rather than imposing automatic exclusion. On the Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator CHFI exam, this question tests your understanding of UK digital evidence admissibility rules, often appearing as a trap where candidates mistakenly assume a warrantless seizure always leads to automatic suppression. Remember the mnemonic “Section 78 = Discretionary Balance” to recall that fairness, not legality of seizure alone, governs admissibility.
CHFI Computer Forensics Fundamentals and Process Practice Question
This CHFI practice question tests your understanding of computer forensics fundamentals and process. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
In a UK-based investigation, law enforcement officers seize a computer without a warrant. The suspect argues the seizure violated his rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Which of the following is a key consideration under PACE regarding the admissibility of the seized evidence?
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
The court may exclude the evidence if its admission would be unfair to the suspect.
Under Section 78 of PACE, the court has discretion to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. Since the computer was seized without a warrant, the court must weigh the potential breach of PACE safeguards against the probative value of the digital evidence. This is not automatic exclusion, but a judicial balancing test specific to the circumstances of the seizure.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
✗
The evidence is automatically admissible because it was seized during an investigation.
Why it's wrong here
PACE allows exclusion of unfairly obtained evidence.
✗
The evidence is admissible because it is circumstantial.
Why it's wrong here
Circumstantial evidence is not automatically admissible; the manner of seizure matters.
✗
The evidence is admissible only if the suspect signed a consent form.
Why it's wrong here
Consent is one factor but not the only consideration.
✓
The court may exclude the evidence if its admission would be unfair to the suspect.
Why this is correct
Section 78 of PACE gives the court discretion to exclude evidence obtained improperly.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
EC-Council often tests the misconception that any procedural violation automatically excludes evidence, whereas PACE Section 78 gives the court discretion to admit evidence if the breach does not render the trial unfair.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
In digital forensics, the chain of custody and lawful authority to seize are foundational to admissibility. Under PACE Code B, a warrantless seizure is only lawful in specific exigent circumstances (e.g., to prevent harm or loss of evidence). If the seizure violates PACE, the court applies the Section 78 balancing test, considering factors such as the seriousness of the breach, the nature of the evidence, and whether admitting it would undermine the integrity of the proceedings. This mirrors the U.S. 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine but with more judicial discretion.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A practitioner preparing for the CHFI exam encounters this exact type of scenario on the job. The correct answer here is not the most general option — it is the best answer for the specific constraint described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Real exam questions reward reading the full scenario before eliminating options, because the constraint defines which answer fits.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this CHFI question in full detail.
Computer Forensics Fundamentals and Process — This question tests Computer Forensics Fundamentals and Process — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: The court may exclude the evidence if its admission would be unfair to the suspect. — Under Section 78 of PACE, the court has discretion to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. Since the computer was seized without a warrant, the court must weigh the potential breach of PACE safeguards against the probative value of the digital evidence. This is not automatic exclusion, but a judicial balancing test specific to the circumstances of the seizure.
What should I do if I get this CHFI question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. In a UK-based investigation, the police seize a computer without a warrant. The suspect's lawyer argues that the evidence is inadmissible because it violates which law?
hard
✓ A.Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
B.Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution
C.General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
D.Computer Misuse Act
Why A: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 governs the powers of police in England and Wales to search, seize, and retain evidence. Without a warrant, the seizure of a computer likely violates PACE's requirements for lawful entry and seizure, making the evidence inadmissible under UK law.
Variation 2. In a UK-based investigation under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), a forensic examiner is asked to seize computers from a business premises. Which of the following actions is MOST compliant with PACE requirements?
hard
A.Conduct a forensic analysis at the scene to determine relevance before seizure
B.Copy all data on-site and delete the originals to avoid leaving evidence behind
C.Enter the premises without a warrant because evidence may be destroyed
✓ D.Seize only items that are specified in the search warrant and provide a receipt
Why D: Option D is correct because PACE requires that during a search under warrant, only items specified in the warrant may be seized, and a receipt must be provided to the occupier. This ensures legal compliance, chain of custody, and respect for property rights, which are fundamental to admissible digital evidence.
Variation 3. In a UK-based investigation, which legal framework governs the search and seizure of digital evidence?
medium
A.Electronic Communications Privacy Act
✓ B.PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act)
C.Fourth Amendment
D.GDPR
Why B: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides the legal framework for police powers, including search and seizure of digital evidence in the UK.
Last reviewed: Jun 30, 2026
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
This CHFI practice question is part of Courseiva's free EC-Council certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CHFI exam.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.