S78 PACE ESSAY

In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions. The test was fairness to the proceedings. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK

Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities. Allan v UK , Texheira v Portugal Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: The comment invites you to review the case law on exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE and analyse the judgments to see if you derive a coherent set of principles. Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent thread in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance.

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate? However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

  KUHS THESIS APPROVAL

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: In Looseley [] the House of Lords acknowledged the importance of both the protective principle and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process.

Find a textbook Find your local rep. Note finally that judicial discretion pac override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

The comment invites you to review the case law on exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE and analyse the judgments to see if you pafe a coherent set of principles. The scope of the question: Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s7 All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it.

s78 pace essay

You will need to be familiar with the leading cases and also with academic comment, most of which has been critical of an overly cautious stance of the judiciary. The test was fairness to the proceedings.

Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the court to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission pacr have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”.

  PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY TEST LN DUBEY

Apart from confessions, there are few cases where s78 has been applied to exclude evidence and thus, although the courts accept the principle that s78 may exclude entrapment evidence, for example, it is rarely applied.

s78 pace essay

Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard essya principled approach.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other pave confessions.

Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent thread in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance.

Also the test set out e. A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78it does 7s8 the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

s78 pace essay

Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect.