In other words, if a reasonable person who knew all the facts would see that the admission of some piece of evidence would affect the fairness of the trial and this would affect the repute of the courts as places where one receives fair justice, then the evidence must be excluded.
Repute, therefore, is not merely a matter of one contour of the word `reputation' in the sense of the courts looking good.
Seeing law that way means that the very authority and credibility of law is derived from its repute in our minds.
Obviously, then, the repute of law is vital to the very existence of law.
In particular, one concern about the repute of the administration of criminal justice is directed at the ability of the court process to function against impediments and interference by other sections of government: this brings us back to judicial independence.
The balancing of the effect of exclusion of evidence on the repute of criminal justice against the effect of admission of evidence on the repute of criminal justice is, actually, a very important element of how the Supreme Court of Canada has decided such matters.
The repute of the administration of criminal justice, then, is not a matter of image or optics, but part of the legacy of our hard-won democracy and freedom.
It may be mentioned that the tradition of such type of intellectuals sessions at Chatem House, a renowned think tank of Britain is about 100 years' old and only prominent politicians or personalities having international repute
in various sectors are invited for address.