S78 PACE ESSAY

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect.

Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. 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 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. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Also the test set out e. 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.

Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have pwce indirect effect.

  PHYSICS HOMEWORK #61

s78 pace essay

The scope of esday question: Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions. Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the court to exclude pacd evidence if its admission “would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”.

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made.

s78 pace essay

The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Laudan p for example argues that essat acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained.

Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question.

There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities. Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach.

Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled esasy on s The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. 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.

  BHARATANATYAM DISSERTATION TOPICS

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. 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. All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: 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.

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

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: The test was fairness to the proceedings. Find a textbook Find your local rep.

A v Secretary of State for Home Department is eessay landmark principled stance although not on s78it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other eseay confessions.