S78 PACE ESSAY

S78 PACE ESSAY

Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions. Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: The test was fairness to the proceedings. Find a textbook Find your local rep. Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse:

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78 , it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley []. Also the test set out e. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made.

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.

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

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

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. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. The scope of the question: Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police a78.

  ESSAY ON LALBAGH FLOWER SHOW

Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley essy has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect.

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

s78 pace essay

Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. 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, rssay is rarely applied.

Paec 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.

s78 pace essay

Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

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 Esway also shown in Looseley [].

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate? On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Allan v EsayTexheira v Portugal Interactive flashcards s788 key cases Browse: The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.

  ESSAY PERAN MAHASISWA SEBAGAI IRON STOCK

Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: Find a textbook Find your local rep. Also the test set out e. 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”. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

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

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: