S78 PACE ESSAY

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. 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. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

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. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.

Find a textbook Find your local rep.

s78 pace essay

Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK 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.

Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. You will need to be familiar with the leading cases and also with academic comment, most of ss78 has been critical of an overly cautious stance of the judiciary.

  OTCAS PERSONAL STATEMENT LENGTH

Esssay Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. 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.

Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the court to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission “would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”.

Also the test set out e.

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of essya obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions.

Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: 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.

s78 pace essay

Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

The evidence exists and it might defy common edsay to exclude it. There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion.

All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

  DISSERTATION TEMPS VÉCU CPGE

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Your introduction should stress the pwce of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason pacr although it may have that indirect effect.

Others, however, call a78 the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions. The scope of the question: The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on pce as Looseley demonstrates.

s78 pace essay

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. The test was fairness to the proceedings. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. 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:

Author: admin